Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 31431 (CHH)

VINOD SINGH @ SUNIL KUMAR v. ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA

MAC/1344/2019 · 2026-08-17

Shri Sanjay K Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010227532019 2026:CGHC:36926 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1344 of 2019 1 - Vinod Singh @ Sunil Kumar S/o Satta Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o In Front Of Sbi Bank, Gidam, Tahsil And Police Station Gidam, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 2 - Manager Sarawati Shiksha Mandir, Sanchalak Mohan Singh, S/o Satta Singh, R/o In Front Of Sbi Bank, Gidam, Tahsil And Police Station Gidam, District South Bastar Dantevada, Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ashok Kumar Mishra S/o Late Shri D.D. Pandit Aged About 40 Years R/o Gad Colony Avrabhata, Police Station And Tahsil Dantevada, District South Bastar Dantevada Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Reeta Mishra W/o Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra Aged About 41 Years R/o Gad Colony Avrabhata, Police Station And Tahsil Dantevada, District South Bastar Dantevada Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ankush Mishra S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra Aged About 18 Years R/o Gad Colony Avrabhata, Police Station And Tahsil Dantevada, District South Bastar Dantevada Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 2 4 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office - Raipur, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : None For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Utkarsh Patel on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate SB – Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 18/08/2026 1. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 14/07/2026, the matter was called up twice for hearing but none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Today also the matter was called up twice for hearing but none appeared on behalf of the appellant. In these circumstances, this Court has no other option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 2. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Harneet