1 CGHC010218122018 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 393 of 2018 Bhilai Builders Pvt. Ltd. B-2/11, Ravi Bhawan Ge Road, (Wrongly Mentioned Impugned Order As Je Road) Raipur, Through Managing Director Gulab Jain, Son Of Shri Lalchand Jain, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Choubey Colony, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff No. 2), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Rachna Jain W/o Shri Pramod Jain, R/o Near Gayatri Hospital, Rohinipuram, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Union Bank Of India, Ramsagarpara Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Amit Baghel, S/o Shri R.K. Baghel, R/o Kanchan Ganga, Dangania, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Harishankar Madharia, (Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order As Mandaria) Son Of Shri Th Madharia, Resident Of Gayatri Hospital, Rohinipuram, Dangania, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sh. Sharad Shukla, S/o Shri Munnalal Shulka, R/o Station Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Defendants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Akhil Bhartiya Guru Ghasidas Maha Samiti, Registered Samiti, Registration No. 665, Through Authorized Representative (Previously) Shri Gulab Jain, Son Of Shri Lalchand Jain, Guru Ghasidas Maha Samiti, Aamapara, Raipur And At Present Through President Dr. Laxman Bharti. (Plaintiff No. 1), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : None in two rounds. For Respondent : None in two rounds. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 Division Bench Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sushma Sawant Order on Board (22.09.2026) 1. None appeared on behalf of the parties when the matter was taken up today even in the second round. Therefore, we are left with no other option, but to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. 2. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sushma Sawant) Judge Judge s@if