Chhattisgarh High Court
SA/453/2019 of AJIT RAM CHOUHAN Vs LAXMI on 15 October 2026
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 453 of 2019 Ajit Ram Chouhan S/o Late Maniram Chouhan Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Kotba, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Laxmi W/o Late Ranjeet Kumar Chouhan
CGHC010192342019
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 453 of 2019
Ajit Ram Chouhan S/o Late Maniram Chouhan Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Kotba, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
Versus
1 - Laxmi W/o Late Ranjeet Kumar Chouhan Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Kotba, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District :
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Manoj Kumar S/o Ranjeet Kumar Chouhan Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Kotba, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District :
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Surendra Kumar S/o Ranjeet Kumar Chouhan Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Kotba, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Priyanka D/o Ranjeet Kumar Chouhan Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Kotba, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District :
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Ku. Kondi D/o Ranjeet Kumar Chouhan Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Kotba, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District :
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
6 - Savitnandan Nikhade S/o Maruti Rao Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kotba, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District :
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
Page 1 of 2
7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)
:
None.
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, G.A.
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT
Order on Board
16/10/2026
1. This appeal was filed in the year 2019.
2. On 04.07.2019, the Registry pointed out certain defects in the appeal.
3. On 04.07.2019, none appeared on behalf of the appellant, and this Court granted six weeks' time to rectify the defects.
4. Today, despite the matter being called twice, none has appeared on behalf of the appellant.
5. The defects pointed out by the Registry have not been cured till date.
6. In view of the above, the second appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution and for non-compliance with the order of this Court. Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE Saurabh
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…