Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5820 (CHH)

Ghasnin Bai v. Gendram

SA/124/2017 · 2026-04-08

Shri Bibhu Datta Guru

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:16327 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 124 of 2017 1 - Ghasnin Bai D/o Late Bisauha, Aged About 48 Years W/o Tetkuram Lodhi, R/o Village Kalogondi, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Gangabai D/o Late Bisauha, Aged About 46 Years W/o Shiv Janghel Wrongly Mentioned As Tirith Ram Lodhi R/o Village- Ghoghre, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Jamuna Bai D/o Bisauha, Aged About 43 Years W/o Manharan Janghel, R/o Village Udan, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kachra Bai D/o Bisauha, Aged About 41 Years W/o Meghnath Janghel, R/o Village- Seetadabri, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ................Plaintiffs, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.04.09 17:03:26 +0530 2 1 - Gendram S/o Late Bisauha, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Ghoghre, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Manoj S/o Gendram Lodhi, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Ghoghre, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Lekhram S/o Gendram, Aged About 18 Years Minor At The Time Of Filing The Suit R/o Village Ghoghre, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : None For Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 : Shri Ujjawal Agrawal, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Mahesh Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 09.04.2026 1. None appears nor any representation made on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal on repeated calls. 2. In view of the above, it appears that the appellant has lost interest in pursuing the present matter. 3 3. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib