Chhattisgarh High Court
CRR/524/2016 of Chandra Prakash Kukreja Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Oth. on 24 June 2026
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No.524 of 2016 1 - Chandra Prakash Kukreja S/o Late Ramchandra Kukreja Aged About 50 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Ward No.5, Saraipali, District - Mahasamund, P.S. - Saraipali, Civil And Revenue District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Applicant (s)
2026:CGHC:26005
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No.524 of 2016
1 - Chandra Prakash Kukreja S/o Late Ramchandra Kukreja Aged About 50 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Ward No.5, Saraipali, District - Mahasamund, P.S. - Saraipali, Civil And Revenue District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
Applicant (s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kansiram Jaiswal S/o Nandlal Jaiswal Aged About 46 Years 3 - Ashok Jaiswal S/o Kansiram Jaiswal Aged About 24 Years 4 - Rasik Jaiswal S/o Kansiram Jaiswal Aged About 24 Years All are R/o Sanjay Nagar, Post - Saraipali, P.S. And Tahsil - Saraipali District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
Respondent(s)
For Applicant (s)
:
None
For Respondent No.1
:
Ms. Himanshu Yadu, PL
For Respondent Nos.2 to 4 :
Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order on Board
25/06/2026
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 no one appeared on behalf of the applicant. On the last date of hearing also i.e. on 04.03.2025 & 20.03.2026 no one Digitally signed by R NIRALA
appeared on behalf of the applicant, as such it appears that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the matter. Therefore, under these circumstances, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the revision for want of prosecution.
2. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala