Chhattisgarh High Court
SA/163/2019 of BHARTIYA BAHUJAN KALYAN SANGH Vs OM PRAKASH on 8 October 2026
2026:CGHC:43868 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 163 of 2019 1 - Bhartiya Bahujan Kalyan Sangh Mahant Para Shivrinarayan Through Its President Kamla Prasad Khunte, Aged About 60 Yrs, S/o Punit Ram, R/o Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh...........(Deft
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.
CGHC010056762019
2026:CGHC:43868
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 163 of 2019 1 - Bhartiya Bahujan Kalyan Sangh Mahant Para Shivrinarayan Through Its President Kamla Prasad Khunte, Aged About 60 Yrs, S/o Punit Ram, R/o Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh...........(Deft No.1), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Om Prakash S/o Ganpat Rai Sultaniya Caste- Agrawal, R/o Village Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh...............(Plaintiff), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District- Collector, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.............(Deft. No.2), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tahsildar Tahsil Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh..........(Deft. No.3), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : None For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate For State/respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Deepak Singh, PL
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 09/10/2026 It transpires from the order-sheet dated 26.09.2026 that, when the matter was taken up, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, this Court directed the matter to be listed on the next date of hearing, observing that, in the event of non-representation on behalf of the appellant, appropriate orders may be passed. Today, when the matter was called twice, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. In view of the above, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
2. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE Pawan