Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 38223 (CHH)

PHOOL BAI v. ANSUIYA BEWA

SA/255/2018 · 2026-10-06

Smt Sushma Sawant

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010137662018 2026:CGHC:43503 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 255 of 2018 1 - Phool Bai D/o Satkunwar Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Fagurm Tahsil Malkharauda District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Puneesharan S/o Kushal Prasad Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Fagurm Tahsil Malkharauda District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deel Prasad S/o Kushal Prasad Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Fagurm Tahsil Malkharauda District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ghasi Ram S/o Kushal Prasad Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Fagurm Tahsil Malkharauda District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Putreebai D/o Kushal Prasad Aged About 47 Years (Neelbai D/o Kushal Prasad Aged About 40 Years. Dead). R/o Village Fagurm Tahsil Malkharauda District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Ansuiya Bewa Wd/o Khemsingh Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bhainapara, Tahsil Kharsiya District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mukesh S/o Rishi Lal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bhainapara, Tahsil Kharsiya District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Khigesh S/o Rishilal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bhainapara, Tahsil Kharsiya District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Maltibai S/o Rishi Lal Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Bhainapara, Tahsil NIKITA JAIN Digitally signed by NIKITA JAIN Date: 2026.10.07 16:35:47 +0530 2 Kharsiya District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Minor Padma S/o Rishi Lal Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Vijay Laxmi Wd/o Rishi Lal. R/o Village Bhainapara, Tahsil Kharsiya District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Vijay Laxmi Wd/o Rishi Lal Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bhainapara, Tahsil Kharsiya District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Nankibai Wd/o Narsingh Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Fagurm, Tahsil Malkharauda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Chineelal S/o Narsingh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Fagurm, Tahsil Malkharauda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Laxmiprasad S/o Narsingh Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Fagurm, Tahsil Malkharauda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 10 - Lakhanlal S/o Narsingh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Fagurm, Tahsil Malkharauda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 11 - Chineekunvar S/o Narsingh Jaijai Babulal @ Shantikumar, R/o Village Dholnar, Thana And Tahsil Sakti, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 12 - Laxmi Kunwar S/o Narsingh Jaijai Bhagwandeep, R/o Village Banjari, Thana And Tahsil Malkharauda, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 13 - Kaushal S/o Thansingh Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Ragurm Tahsil Malkharauda, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 14 - Prabhu S/o Thansingh Aged About 50 Years R/o District Jail Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 15 - Sundar S/o S/o Thansingh Aged About 45 Years R/o District Jail Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 16 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Raigarh, District Commissioner 3 Or Civil Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 17 - Ghuravaram S/o Gopiram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Bhainapara, Tahsil Kharsiya, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 18 - Tirathram S/o Narayan Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Bhainapara, Tahsil Kharsiya, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 19 - Santosh S/o Premlal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bhainapara, Tahsil Kharsiya, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 20 - Bodhram S/o S/o Mahettar R/o Village Parsada (Kironimalnagar), Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants : None. For State/Respondent No.16 : Shri Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. Single Bench:Hon'ble Smt. Sushma Sawant, J Order On Board 07.10.2026 1. This second appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.01.2018 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.34//2016. 2. None appears nor any representation is made on behalf of the appellants even when the case is called in the second round of hearing, therefore, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sushma Sawant) JUDGE Nikita