Chhattisgarh High Court
MAC/2093/2026 of BHAGWATI PRASAD BHARDWAJ Vs TILAK RAM NISHAD on 5 October 2026
2026:CGHC:43170 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2093 of 2026 1 - Bhagwati Prasad Bhardwaj S/o Itwari Bhardwaj, Aged About 46 Years, All Are R/o Ward No. 05, Satnami Para, Kusmi, Police Station And Tehsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, C. G. 2 - Brihaspati
CGHC010324792026
2026:CGHC:43170
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2093 of 2026
1 - Bhagwati Prasad Bhardwaj S/o Itwari Bhardwaj, Aged About 46
Years, All Are R/o Ward No. 05, Satnami Para, Kusmi, Police Station And Tehsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, C. G.
2 - Brihaspati Bai, W/o Bhagwati Prasad Bhardwaj, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Ward No. 05, Satnami Para, Kusmi, Police Station And Tehsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, C. G.
3 - Ajay Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Bhagwati Prasad Bhardwaj, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Ward No. 05, Satnami Para, Kusmi, Police Station And Tehsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, C. G.
4 - Itwari Bhardwaj (Since Dead) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 18-09-2026.
5 - Chandarwati Bhardwaj W/o Late Itwari Bhardwaj, Aged About 61
Years, R/o Ward No. 05, Satnami Para, Kusmi, Police Station And Tehsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, C. G.
... Appellants
versus
1 - Tilak Ram Nishad S/o Vishnu Prasad Nishad R/o Ward No. 3, Near Primary School Aklordih, Post Surdum Police Station Bhilai -03, District Durg C. G. ----( Driver And Owner Of Vehicle).
2 - Tata, A I G. General Insurance Company Limited 4th Floor, Gwalani, Chamber Office T- 08, Near I C I C Banck , Vyapar, Vihar, Bilaspur, Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur C. G. ---(Insurer Of Vehicle).
3 - Shubham Kumar R/o House No. -14, Girhola, Post Ahiwara, District Durg C. G. ---(Ex-Owner Of Vehicle).
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants
:
None.
For Respondents
:
Not noticed.
Hon'ble
Shri
Justice
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
06/10/2026
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. Today, none appears on behalf of the appellants even when the case is called in the second round. It is further noted that on 18.09.2026, no one had appeared on behalf of the appellants. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the present appeal.
2. In the absence of any representation on behalf of the appellants, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
3. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge $ourabh