Chhattisgarh High Court
MAC/329/2023 of VIVEK AMBADE Vs SMT. BELSIYA BAI on 14 October 2026
2026:CGHC:44664 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 329 of 2023 1 - Vivek Ambade S/o Sanjay Ambade Aged About 19 Years Caste Mahar, Resident Of Danteshwari Para Ward No. 2, Near Gajbhiye Kirana Shop, Dongargarh, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
CGHC010068572023
2026:CGHC:44664
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 329 of 2023
1 - Vivek Ambade S/o Sanjay Ambade Aged About 19 Years Caste Mahar, Resident Of Danteshwari Para Ward No. 2, Near Gajbhiye Kirana Shop, Dongargarh, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Driver)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Smt. Belsiya Bai Widow Of Ubheram Verma Aged About 54 Years Resident Of Village Heerapur, Police Station Dongargarh, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
2 - Jamun Bai W/o Chandrakar Verma Aged About 39 Years Resident Of Village Heerapur, Police Station Dongargarh, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
3 - Smt. Reena Bai W/o Rikhiram Verma Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Village Heerapur, Police Station Dongargarh, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
4 - Smt. Kamin Bai W/o Nandkishore Verma Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Village Heerapur, Police Station Dongargarh, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh…...(Claimants)
5 - Jaideep Meshram S/o Jairam Meshram Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Danteshwari Para Ward No.2 Near Gajbhiye Kirana Shop, Dongargarh, Tahsil Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
……...(Owner)
... Respondents
For Appellant
: None
For Respondents
: None
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board
/ 10
/ 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. On 17.09.2026, when the matter was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. Today also when the matter was called for hearing, no one appears on behalf of the appellant.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the driver-cum-owner and mandatory amount of Rs.25,000/- has also not been deposited and there is delay of 247 days in filing the appeal.
3. It transpires from the record and the prayer made in the appeal that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge pekde