Chhattisgarh High Court
SA/63/2019 of SUNDAR Vs SUKHNANDAN on 30 September 2026
2026:CGHC:42858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 63 of 2019 1. Sundar S/o Kola Aged About 47 Years, 2. Nyoriya S/o Kola Aged About 47 Years, Both Are R/o Jamdara, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.). ... Appellant(s)/Plaintiffs. versus 1. Sukhnandan S/o Kola Aged
CGHC010016832019
2026:CGHC:42858
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 63 of 2019
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. Sundar S/o Kola Aged About 47 Years,
2. Nyoriya S/o Kola Aged About 47 Years, Both Are R/o Jamdara, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.).
... Appellant(s)/Plaintiffs. versus
1. Sukhnandan S/o Kola Aged About 47 Years Cast Uraon, R/o Village Jamtara, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ..........Defendants.
2. Agostina Lakra W/o Late Bartholomis Lakra Aged About 48 Years,
3. Ravi Lakra S/o Bartholomis Lakra Aged About 17 Years, Through Natural Guardian Agostina Lakra, Both Are R/o Jamtara, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. Present Address Gevra Pariyojna Dipka Colloni, Thana Dipka, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
4. State Of Chhattisgarh, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : None. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice
Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
01/10/2026
Earlier, when the matter was called on 26/09/2026, no one appeared on behalf of the Appellants despite two calls. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed in the next week, with an observation that, if no one appears on behalf of the Appellants on the next date of hearing, this Court may pass an appropriate order. Even today, when this matter is called twice, none appeared nor any representation is made on behalf of the Appellants.
Under these circumstances, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
In view of above, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. -Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Chandrakant