Chhattisgarh High Court
MCC/887/2026 of RAGHUVAR KUSHWAHA (DIED) THROUGH LRS. 1. KAUSHALYA KUSHWAHA Vs SMT. CHANDRAMANI KUSHWAHA on 21 September 2026
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 887 of 2026 1 - Raghuvar Kushwaha (Died) Through Lrs. 1. Kaushalya Kushwaha Aged About 65 Years Nil 1.1 - Kaushalya Kushwaha W/o Raghuwar Prasad Kushwaha Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Bhagwanpur Khurd, Tehsil And District Surajpur C.
CGHC010349872026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCC No. 887 of 2026
1 - Raghuvar Kushwaha (Died) Through Lrs. 1. Kaushalya Kushwaha Aged About 65 Years Nil 1.1 - Kaushalya Kushwaha W/o Raghuwar Prasad Kushwaha Aged About 65
Years R/o Village Bhagwanpur Khurd, Tehsil And District Surajpur C. G.
1.2 - Chandradeep Kushwaha S/o Raghuwar Prasad Kushwaha Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Bhagwanpur Khurd, Tehsil And District Surajpur C. G.
1.3 - Rekha Kushwaha D/o Raghuwar Prasad Kushwaha Aged About 45
Years R/o Village Bhagwanpur Khurd, Tehsil And District Surajpur C. G.
1.4 - Sunita Kushwaha D/o Raghuwar Prasad Kushwaha Aged About 40
Years R/o Village Bhagwanpur Khurd, Tehsil And District Surajpur C. G.
1.5 - Mamta Kushwaha D/o Raghuwar Prasad Kushwaha Aged About 35
Years R/o Village Bhagwanpur Khurd, Tehsil And District Surajpur C. G.
1.6 - Radha Kushwha D/o Raghuwar Prasad Kushwaha Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bhagwanpur Khurd, Tehsil And District Surajpur C. G.
2 - Chhataru Prasad Kushwaha S/o Late Lakshman Kushwaha Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Bhagwanpur Khurd Tehsil And District Surajpur C. G.
.. Applicant(s)
versus
1 - Smt. Chandramani Kushwaha D/o Late Lakshman Kushwaha, Aged About 60 Years W/o Dadan Ram Kushwaha, R/o Gandhinagar Tehsil Ambikapur District Surajpur C. G.
2 - Smt, Kalawati Kushwaha, D/o Late Lakshman Kushwaha W/o Devnath Kushwaha, R/o Village And Tehsil Bhaiyathan District Surajpur C. G.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Order on Board
22/09/2026
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. This is an application for restoration of WP227 No. 52/2018, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 22.07.2026.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that on 22.07.2026, when the matter was called for hearing, due to unavoidable reasons, he could not appear in the case, therefore, the same has been dismissed for want of prosecution. He would further submit that the matter pertains to a challenge to the order passed by the Board of Revenue with respect to the property rights, which requires adjudication on merits; therefore, the writ petition may be restored and it may be heard on merits.
3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The WP227 No. 52/2018 is restored to its original number. Since the writ petition is of the year 2018, let the said WP227 No. 52/2018 be listed for hearing week after next.
4. With this observation, the present MCC is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok