Chhattisgarh High Court
SA/345/2017 of Budhara Bai Vs Dhan Bai on 14 October 2026
2026:CGHC:44761 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 345 of 2017 Budhara Bai, W/o. Ganesh Ram Satnami, Being Legal Representative Since Original Ganga Bai W/o. Baran Had Died As Being Her Daughter, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Village Khaira, Cultivator Of Village Chherkapur,
CGHC010197872017
2026:CGHC:44761
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 345 of 2017
Budhara Bai, W/o. Ganesh Ram Satnami, Being Legal Representative Since Original Ganga Bai W/o. Baran Had Died As Being Her Daughter, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Village Khaira, Cultivator Of Village Chherkapur, P.C. No. 83, Revenue Circle And Tahsil Palari, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
Defendant
versus
1 - Dhan Bai, Aged About 55 Years, D/o. Samaru Satnami, True Daughter Of Baratu Satnami, R/o. Village Chherkapur, Tahsil Palari, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
2 – Budhu, Aged About 60 Years, S/o. Baratu (Wrongly Noted Baran) Satnami, R/o. Village Chherkapur, Tahsil Palari, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
3 – Sudhu, Aged About 58 Years, S/o. Baratu (Wrongly Noted Baran) Satnami, R/o. Village Chherkapur, Tahsil Palari, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
4 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector Baloda Bazar, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
Plaintiffs
For Appellant
:
None appeared.
For Respondent No.4
:
Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer
(Single Bench)
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Sushma Sawant
Order on Board
15.10.2026
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. This second appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment & decree dated 22.02.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Baloda-Bazar, District Baloda-Bazar/Bhatapra in Civil Appeal No.36-A/2016.
2. Earlier on 19.06.2017 & 26.07.2017, none appeared on behalf of the appellant and even today also, when the matter is called for hearing twice, none appeared nor any representation is made on behalf of the appellant; therefore, this Court has no other option except to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.
3. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Sd/- (Sushma Sawant)
Judge Ashok