Chhattisgarh High Court
SA/535/2019 of Horilal Yadav Vs Shanti on 30 September 2026
2026:CGHC:42857 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 535 of 2019 • Horilal Yadav S/o Sukhram Aged About 45 Years Caste Rawat, R/o Darogapara, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Shanti D/o Bhairalal Nishad Aged About 38 Years Caste
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.
CGHC010244842019
2026:CGHC:42857
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 535 of 2019 • Horilal Yadav S/o Sukhram Aged About 45 Years Caste Rawat, R/o Darogapara, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant(s) versus
Shanti D/o Bhairalal Nishad Aged About 38 Years Caste Kewat, At Present R/o Timarlaga, Tahsil Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
Kanti Bai D/o Bhairalal (Died). 2.1(A). Vinay Nishad S/o Chhedilal Nishad Aged About 40 Years, 2.2(B). Rakesh Nishad S/o Chhedilal Nishad Aged About 10 Years, Both Are R/o Village Chandrapur, Tahsil Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, Through Legal Natural Guardian Vinay Nishad.
Prafull Agrawal S/o Mahabir Prasad Agrawal, R/o Subhash Chowk, Tahsil District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : None. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Govt. Advocate. 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 Appellant 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 Appellant 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 Appellant.
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