Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34952 (CHH)

ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. SMT. USHA AGRAWAL

MCC/841/2026 · 2026-09-07

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010326052026 2026:CGHC:39387 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 841 of 2026 Arun Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Jyoti Prasad Agrawal Aged About 58 Years Occupation- Business, R/o. Village- Pathalgaon, Tahsil- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Usha Agrawal W/o. Shri Shyamlal Agrawal Aged About 52 Years Occupation- Housewife, Permanent Ro. Village- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.), Presently R/o. B-903, Salpuria, Sattva Melody, Mysore Road (Wrongly Mentioned As New Delhi In The Impugned Order Dated 10.07.2026, Passed By 2nd D.J. Kunkuri), P.O. Government Electric Factory, Suburban District- Bengaluru South, District - Bengaluru (Karnataka). Through Her General Power Of Attorney Holder, Shri Satish Kumar Jindal, S/o. Late Shri Rameshwardas Agrawal, Aged About- 62 Years, R/o. Madhav Department Stores, Ambikapur Road, Pathalgaon, Tahsil- Pathalgaon, District - Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Malay Jain, P.L. for the State (Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 08/09/2026 1. This is an application for restoration of the WP227 No.966/2026 which SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.09.09 12:10:10 +0530 2 has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 12.08.2026. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that due to unavoidable circumstances learned counsel appearing for the applicant could not appeared in the case when the matter was called for hearing and the same has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 12.08.2026. 3. The matter pertains to grant of temporary injunction against the petitioner which requires adjudication on merits, therefore, the matter may be heard on merits. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 5. On due consideration upon the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and WP227 No.966/2026 is restored to its original number. 6. The MCC is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sumit