Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 36054 (CHH)

NITESH BAFNA v. ASHA RAM

WP227/543/2023 · 2026-09-16

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010215112023 2026:CGHC:40711 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 543 of 2023 1 - Nitesh Bafna S/o. Motilal Bafna, Aged About 55 Years Caste Jain, Resident Village Pulgaon Ward No. 55, P.S. Pulgaon, District, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Inderchand Bafna, S/o. Late Ratanlal Bafna, Aged About 62 Years R/o. Village Psaud, P.S. Devari, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Asha Ram S/o. Tirkey Sahu, R/o. Village Dohan, Post Jadutola Tehsil Chhuriya District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Devprashad Halba, S/o. Suraj Halba, Resident Of Village Mawlichuwa, Post Jadutola P.S. Gendatola Tehsil Chhuriya District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sheelu Ram, S/o. Bhagirathi Sinha, Resident Of Village Mawlichuwa, Post Jadutola P.S. Gendatola Tehsil Chhuriya District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Basant Ram, S/o. Manglu Ram Sinha, Resident Of Village Mawlichuwa, Post Jadutola P.S. Gendatola Tehsil Chhuriya District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ganesh Ram Salamey, S/o. Late Ganshu Ram, Aged About 62 Years Resident Of Village Dohan, Post Jadutola Tehsil Chhuriya P.S. Gendatola District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ( Amended Party). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Respondent No. 1,3,4 & 6 : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.5 Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy.G.A. SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.09.18 12:23:51 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J) Order on Board 17/09/2026 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the trial before the learned trial Court has already been concluded and now the present writ petition has become infructuous, therefore, he does not want to press the same. 2. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the present writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit