Chhattisgarh High Court
WP227/492/2022 of SHIVCHARAN Vs Bhurelal on 7 October 2026
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 492 of 2022 1 - Shivcharan S/o Nathu Bhurtiya Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Rend, Tahsil Bharatpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff No. 2) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bhurelal S/o Birju Ahir Aged About 34 Years R/o Village
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.
CGHC010250352022
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 492 of 2022 1 - Shivcharan S/o Nathu Bhurtiya Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Rend, Tahsil Bharatpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff No. 2)
... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bhurelal S/o Birju Ahir Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Uchehara, Tahsil Bharatpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 1) 2 - Ramcharan S/o Nathu Bhurtiya Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Sehi, Tahsil Bharatpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Plaintiffs No. 1) 3 - Ramprasad S/o Nathu Bhurtiya Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Paladadar, Tahsil Pali, District Umariya (Madhya Pradesh) (Plaintiff No.
4 - Shivprasad S/o Nathu Bhurtiya Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Sehi, Tahsil Bharatpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Plaintiffs No. 4) 5 - Shivvachan S/o Nathu Bhurtiya Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Podi, Tahsil Bharatpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Plaintiffs No. 5) 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 2)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : None present. For Respondent No.6/State : Ms. Isha Jajodia, PL
(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 08/10/2026 Since none appears on behalf of the petitioner and no representation is made on his behalf even on repeated calls, this Court has no option but to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge