1 CGHC010024712015 2026:CGHC:41610 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 208 of 2015 Smt. Pramila Bai, W/o Shri Devnath Janghel, aged about 51 years, Caste Lodhi, R/o Village and Post Sarora, P.S. Urla, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) ... Appellant versus 1. Ram Kumar @ Hemant Kumar, S/o late Shri Kumbhlal Verma, aged about 56 years, Caste Lodhi, 2. Dilip Kumar, S/o late Shri Kumbhlal Verma, aged about 49 years, Caste Lodhi, Both are R/o Village Dumardihkhurd, Police Station Dhumka, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3. Smt. Geeta Bai, W/o Shri Chandrakant Janghel, aged about 43 years, Caste Lodhi, R/o Kamtha, P.O. Bijaldehi, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Janki Bai, W/o Shri Kanhaiya Janghel, aged about 59 years, Caste Lodhi, R/o Village Bharda, P.O. Bajar Atariya, P.S. and Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6. Hemulal Verma, S/o late Latmar Verma, aged about 64 years, Caste Lodhi, R/o Village Tatavahi, P.O. Surajpura, (Jungle), Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 7. Manatrin Bai, W/o Dheluram, aged about 60 years, Caste Lodhi, R/o Mohtara, Post and Tahsil Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 8. Tetaki Bai, W/o Satanram, aged about 57 years, Caste Lodhi, R/o Village Nawaghata, Post Virendra Nagar, Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (Defendants) ... Respondents SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.09.25 10:38:42 +0530 2 For Appellant : None present. For Respondents No.1 to 4 & 6 to 8 : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.5/State : Ms. K. Radhika, Panel Lawyer. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Smt. Justice Sushma Sawant Order On Board 24/09/2026 1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment & decree dated 26-3-2015 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No.84A/2014. 2. When the matter is called for hearing in two rounds, none present for the appellant to prosecute the appeal. No representation is made. 3. In absence of representation on behalf of the appellant, the Court has no option except to dismiss the appeal. 4. Accordingly, the first appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sushma Sawant) Judge Soma