Chhattisgarh High Court
FA/54/2019 of DR. SHARAD CHANDRA AGRAWAL Vs MANOJ KUMAR SAHU on 6 October 2026
2026:CGHC:43550 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 54 of 2019 Dr. Sharad Chandra Agrawal S/o Late Rajiv Lochan Agrawal Aged About 57 Years Occupation- Doctor, R/o Baniyapara, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Shri
CGHC010037172019
2026:CGHC:43550
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA No. 54 of 2019
Dr. Sharad Chandra Agrawal S/o Late Rajiv Lochan Agrawal Aged About 57
Years Occupation- Doctor, R/o Baniyapara, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
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. Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Shri U.B. Sahu Aged About 40 Years Occupation
- Service, R/o Quarter No. 06/B, Street No.-24, Sector-7, Bhilai Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector/ Ex-Officio Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, District - Collectorate, Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents For Appellant : None For Respondent/State : Mr. Deepak Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 07.10.2026
1. Despite repeated calls none appeared on behalf of the appellant when the matter was called out for hearing.
2. Mr. Deepak Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 2/State.
3. It transpires from the order-sheet dated 23.09.2026 that, when the matter was taken up, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, this Court directed the matter to be listed in the week after next, with an observation that, in the event no representation was made on behalf of the appellant, appropriate orders may be passed by this Court.
4. Today, when the matter was taken up in the first half, despite the matter being called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Consequently, the matter was directed to be listed before this Court in the second half, with the same observation.
5. When the matter was again taken up after recess, on the second call, none appeared on behalf of the appellant, nor was any representation made on his behalf.
6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the continued absence of representation on behalf of the appellant, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Abhishek