Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 36078 (CHH)

PRAHLAD SAHU v. YASHWANT SAHU

WP227/357/2026 · 2026-09-16

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010111282026 2026:CGHC:40712 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 357 of 2026 1 - Prahlad Sahu S/o Hetram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Eramshahi, Post Ghursena, Tahsil Nandghat, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Amrik Bai W/o Hetram Sahu Aged About 83 Years Through Next Friend/guardian, Prahalad, S/o Hetram Sahu, Aged 48 Years, R/o Village Eramshahi, Post Ghursena, Tahsil Nandghat, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Yashwant Sahu S/o Bhagwat Sahu Aged About 30 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Eramshahi, Post Ghursena, Tahsil Nandghat, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhagwat Sahu S/o Hetram Sahu Aged About 60 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Eramshahi, Post Ghursena, Tehsil Nandghat, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Office Of Collector, Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Bhagirathi S/o Hetram Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Eramshahi, Post Ghursena, Tahsil Nandghat, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Geeta Bai D/o Hetram Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Eramshahi, Post Ghursena, Tahsil Nandghat, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Tijiya Bai D/o Hetram Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Eramshahi, Post Ghursena, Tahsil Nandghat, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Bhusan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : 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. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the plaintiff for whom the application was made for appointment of a next friend, has already been died during pendency of the suit 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