1 CGHC010297542018 2026:CGHC:42405 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 551 of 2018 1 - Mansingh S/o Late Sarwan Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Ghummatola, Tehsil Marwahi And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ............Plaintiff. ... Appellant versus 1 - Basantu Bai D/o Sarwan Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Ghummatola, Tehsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ramantubai D/o Sarwan Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Ghummatola, Tehsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ashok S/o Jagdish Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Ghummatola, Tehsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Satayendra S/o Jagdish Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Ghummatola, Tehsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Pratap Narayan S/o Jagdish Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Ghummatola, Tehsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Manmati W/o Jagdish Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Ghummatola, Tehsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector Bilaspur, Tehsil Marwahi And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents NIKITA JAIN Digitally signed by NIKITA JAIN Date: 2026.09.30 11:08:49 +0530 2 For Appellant : None. For State/Respondent No.7 : Ms. K. Radhika, Panel Lawyer. Single Bench:Hon'ble Smt. Sushma Sawant, J Order On Board 29.09.2026 1. This second appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.7-A/2015. 2. The matter pertains to 2018 and is listed today for orders on default and non-compliance of the order dated 25.09.2018 passed by this Court. Even today, when the case is called, none appears nor any representation is made on behalf of the appellant even when the case is called in the second round of hearing. There is also no explanation on record for non-compliance of the order dated 25.09.2018. 3. In view of the non-compliance of the order dated 25.09.2018 and the absence of the appellant or his counsel despite repeated calls, it appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. This Court, therefore, finds no justification to keep the matter pending any further. 4. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution as well as for non-compliance of the order dated 25.09.2018. Sd/- (Sushma Sawant) JUDGE Nikita