Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 37795 (CHH)

SHIVKUMAR SHUKLA v. KAMALCHAND BHANJDEV

WP227/778/2026 · 2026-09-28

Shri Santosh Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010214692026 2026:CGHC:42356-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 778 of 2026 • Shivkumar Shukla S/o Shri Parmatmanand Ram Shukla, Aged About 68 Years R/o Shiv Daynama Works, Bus Stand Narayanpur District Narayanpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus • Kamalchand Bhanjdev S/o Late Maharaja Bharatchand Bhanjdev, Aged About 39 Years R/o Rajmahal Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : None appears. Hon’ble Shri Krushna Ram Mohapatra Chief Justice & Hon’ble Shri Justice Santosh Sharma Order on Board Per Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice 29/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:- “(a) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to Appeal No. Unregistered/2025 and Case No.12/A- 90(7)/2016-17 from the Courts below for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court; (b) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ for quashing/set aside the impugned order dated 13.05.2026 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Appeal No. Unregistered/2025 whereby the DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and the appeal has consequently been dismissed. (c) Consequently, remand the matter back to the learned Rent Control Appellate Tribunal with a direction to restore the appeal to its original number and decide the same on merits in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. (d) Any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may be deemed fit and proper with cost of petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to proceed with the writ petition, hence, he prays for withdrawal of this writ petition. 4. In view of above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- Sd/- (Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra) Judge Chief Justice Deepti Jha