Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3727 (CHH)

Setram Rathiya v. Dhaneshwar Chouhan ( Died Through Lrs)

MAC/1445/2019 · 2026-04-09

Smt Rajani Dubey

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:16544 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1445 of 2019 1 - Setram Rathiya, Son of Sukhram Rathiya, Aged about 60 years, Occupation- Vehicle Owner, Resident of Village- Supkalo, Police Station- Kapoo, Tahsil- Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kripa Sindhu Rathiya, Son of Praman Prasad Rathiya Aged About 19 Years Occupation- Vehicle Driver, Resident of Village - Supkalo, Police Station- Kapoo, Tahsil- Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Dhaneshwar Chouhan ( Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-03-2025 1.1 - Anju Chouhan D/o Late Dhaneshwar Chouhan Aged About 26 Years 1.2 - Anshu Chouhan D/o Late Dhaneshwar Chouhan Aged About 24 Years 1.3 - Anuradha Chouhan D/o Late Dhaneshwar Chouhan Aged About 22 Years All are R/o Village Karanpali Tahsil Baramkela District - Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Laxmi Bai Wife of Dhaneshwar Chouhan Aged About 44 Years 2 Occupation- Dependent, Resident of Village - Karanpali, Tahsil - Baramkela, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Raigarh Shanti Palace, Near Sarla Villa, Chakradharnagar, Raigarh, Tahsil & District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal appears on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 10.04.2026 1. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that he has received no instructions from his clients in the present matter and, therefore, is unable to effectively represent or advance arguments on their behalf. 2. In view of the aforesaid submission and considering the absence of any representation or prosecution of the appeal on behalf of the appellants, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the present appeal for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV