Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9610 (CHH)

ABDUL RAHMAN KHAN v. OM PRAKASH SONI

MAC/1131/2019 · 2026-04-29

Shri Sanjay K Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:20147 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1131 of 2019 1 - Abdul Rahman Khan, S/o. Abdul Rajjak Khan, Aged About 45 Years, Caste Musalman, R/o. Masjidpara, Surajpur, P.S. Tahsil And District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Aamana Khan, W/o. Abdul Rahman Khan, Aged About 32 Years, Caste Musalman, R/o. Masjidpara, Surajpur, P.S. Tahsil And District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Anish Khan, S/o. Abdul Rahman Khan, Aged About 10 Years, Caste Musalman, Through Legal Natural Guardian Father Abdul Rahman Khan, (Appellant No.1) R/o. Masjidpara, Surajpur, P.S. Tahsil And District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Om Prakash Soni, S/o. Rambharosh, Caste Harijan, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. Village Kadampara, Parsapara, P.S. Tahsil And District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sunder Sai, S/o. Banafar, Aged About 50 Years, Caste Panika, R/o. Village Amadandpara, Nagpani, P.S. Khadwagaon, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.04.30 17:50:02 +0530 2 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants : None appeared. For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. B.N.Nande, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 30.04.2026 1. Earlier on 19.06.2025 & 24.04.2026, none appeared on behalf of the appellants and today also, when the matter is called for hearing twice, none appeared nor any representation is made on behalf of the appellants. 2. Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 submits that respondent No.2 - Sundar Sai has died and his legal representatives are not substituted as they have not interested to prosecute the matter. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok