Madhya Pradesh High Court
SA/705/2004 of CHANDRAMANI PRASAD Vs RAM SINGAR RAM on 19 September 2025
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
ON THE 6th OF APRIL, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 705 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
1.
CHANDRAMANI
PRASAD
S/O
KASHINATH
BRAHMIN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
DHANHA, TEHSIL RAMPUR NAIKIN, DISTRICT
SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH) (DIED)
1(A) RAM MILAN, S/O LATE CHANDRAMANI
PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
1(B) RAM NARAYAN, S/O LATE CHANDRAMANI
PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
1(C) RAM CHARAN, S/O LATE CHANDRAMANI
PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
ALL R/O VILLAGE DHANHA, TAHSIL RAMPUR,
NAIKIN, DISTRICT REWA (M.P.)
2.
SHATRUGHAN PRASAD, S/O BHAIYALAL, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DHANHA, TEHSIL
RAMPUR NAIKIN, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3.
RAJBAHOR S/O JAGDISH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT
YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE
DHANHA,
TEHSIL
RAMPUR NAIKIN, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4.
HARISHCHANDRA S/O JAGDISH PRASAD, AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DHANHA, TEHSIL
RAMPUR NAIKIN, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5.
SHESHMANI S/O JAGDISH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT
YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE
DHANHA,
TEHSIL
RAMPUR NAIKIN, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6.
TEJBHAN S/O JAGDISH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DHANHA, TEHSIL RAMPUR
NAIKIN, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
7.
LALLURAM S/O BAIJNATH RAM, AGED ABOUT 60
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DHANHA, TEHSIL RAMPUR
NAIKIN, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
8.
HARIHARRAM S/O BAIJNATH RAM, AGED ABOUT
YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE
DHANHA,
TEHSIL
RAMPUR NAIKIN, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9.
RAMVISHAL S/O BAIJNATH RAM, AGED ABOUT
Page 1 of 2
YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE
DHANHA,
TEHSIL
RAMPUR NAIKIN, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI A.J. PAWAR - ABSENT )
AND
RAM SINGAR RAM S/O LALOHAR RAM, AGED ABOUT
58 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DHANHA, TEHSIL RAMPUR
NAIKIN, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI R.K. TIWARI - ADVOCATE )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Today none has appeared on behalf of the appellants. On earlier occasion i.e. on 28.01.2019 also no one appeared on behalf of the appellants, which clearly indicates that the appellants have no longer interest in prosecuting this appeal. Appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Needless to say that any interim relief, granted earlier in favour of the appellants also stands vacated. Record of the Courts below be sent back along with the copy of this order to the concerned Courts.
(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE Vin**
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…