Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27680 (CHH)

SAKHARAM RAJPUT v. SMT. BASANT RAJPUT

WP227/892/2026 · 2026-07-19

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010271372026 2026:CGHC:30802 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No.892 of 2026 1 - Sakharam Rajput S/o Late Chamru, Aged About 82 Years R/o Village Ramhepur, Lormi, Infront Of Goyal Petrol Pump, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, C G Current Address Ashiyana, Nutan Chowk, Bhilai-3, District Durg, C G 2 - Madan Manohar, S/o Sakharam Rajput, Aged About 40 Years R/o Ashiyana, Nutan Chowk, Bhilai - 3, District Durg, C G 3 - Ramsharan, S/o Sakharam Rajput, Aged About 36 Years R/o Ashiyana, Nutan Chowk, Bhilai - 3, District Durg, C G 4 - Manharan, S/o Sakharam Rajput, Aged About 38 Years R/o Ashiyana, Nutan Chowk, Bhilai - 3, District Durg, C G Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Basant Rajput S/o Late Purshottam, Aged About 41 Years R/o 38/680, Hemunagar, Torwa, R N T Lane Near Hindustan Tent House, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C G 2 - Rahul Singh, S/o Late Purshottam, Aged About 23 Years R/o 38/680, Hemunagar, Torwa, R N T Lane Near Hindustan Tent House, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C G 3 - Muskan Singh, S/o Late Purshottam, Aged About 21 Years R/o 38/680, Hemunagar, Torwa, R N T Lane Near Hindustan Tent House, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C G 4 - Asharam Rajput, S/o Late Chamru, Aged About 85 Years R/o Village Maharpur, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, C G Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Mungeli, C G Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate For Respondent-State (s) : Mr. Rohan Shukla, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 20/07/2026 1. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that arguments before the learned Trial Court on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC have already been heard and now the case is fixed for passing of the order, therefore, he does not want to press this petition. 2. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed as not press. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Nirala