Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 38290 (CHH)

RUKMANI BAI v. NARAYAN

SA/561/2018 · 2026-10-05

Smt Sushma Sawant

Civil Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 (SA No. 561 of 2018) CGHC010304262018 2026:CGHC:43273 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 561 of 2018 1 - Rukmani Bai D/o Lalsingh Gond Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Gangrajpur, Tahsil Devbhog, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 2 - Senduka Bai D/o Lalsingh Gond Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Gangrajpur, Tahsil Devbhog, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh......(Palaintiffs) --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Narayan S/o Lalsingh Gond Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Gangrajpur, Tahsil Devbhog, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chouhan Singh S/o Lalsingh Gond Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Gangrajpur, Tahsil Devbhog, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 3 - Suvita S/o Lalsingh Gond Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Gangrajpur, Tahsil Devbhog, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 4 - Daimati Wd/o Late Lalsingh Gond Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Gangrajpur, Tahsil Devbhog, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgrah......(Defendants) --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2026.10.07 17:30:11 +0530 2 (SA No. 561 of 2018) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- None in two rounds. For State/ Respondent No.5 :- Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB - Hon'ble Smt. Justice Sushma Sawant Judgment On Board 06.10.2026 1. This second appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.07.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gariyaband, District – Gariyaband in Civil Appeal No.02A/2017. 2. Even on the second call, none appeared on behalf of the appellant, nor was any representation made on her behalf. In these circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the instant appeal for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sushma Sawant) Judge @d!t!