Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 37324 (CHH)

NAWADHABAI v. AARTI

WP227/984/2023 · 2026-09-25

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010395512023 2026:CGHC:42025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 984 of 2023 1 - Nawadhabai Daughter of Heeralal, Aged About 58 Years Caste - Satnami, Resident of Village Jhumka, Tahsil Bhatgaon District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Revisionerist) 2 - Duleshwari @ Dileshwari, Daughter Of Heeralal, Aged About 65 Years Caste - Satnami, Resident of Village Jhumka, Tahsil Bhatgaon District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vidya Bai Daughter of Heeralal, Aged About 58 Years Caste - Satnami, Resident of Village Jhumka, Tahsil Bhatgaon District - Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Padman Bai Daughter of Heeralal, Aged About 47 Years Caste - Satnami, Resident of Village Jhumka, Tahsil Bhatgaon District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Santoshibai Daughter of Heeralal, Aged About 49 Years Caste - Satnami, Resident of Village Jhumka, Tahsil Bhatgaon District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Aarti Daughter of Deendayal, Caste - Satnami, Resident of Village Jhumka, Tahsil Bhatgaon District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Savrin Bai Wife of Deendayal, Caste - Satnami, Resident of Village Jhumka, Tahsil Bhatgaon District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mamta Daughter of Deendayal, Caste - Satnami, Resident of Village Jhumka, Tahsil Bhatgaon District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Anjali Daughter of Deendayal, Caste - Satnami, Resident of Village Jhumka, Tahsil Bhatgaon District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Chandrabhushan Kesharwani, Advocate VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.09.28 15:26:03 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 26/09/2026 1. None appears nor any representation is made on behalf of the petitioner on repeated calls. 2. In view of above, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Vaishali