Madhya Pradesh High Court
MA/4116/2022 of PRAMOD KUMAR BAIS Vs ASHA DEVI PRAJAPATI on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)ON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 4116 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1.PRAMOD KUMAR BAIS S/O RAMANUGRAH BAIS,AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE KAIMHADADPOST TIYARA POLICE STATION WAIDHAN TAHSILAND DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE KAIMHADADPOST TIYARA POLICE STATION WAIDHAN TAHSILAND DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.PAWAN KUMAR VISHWAKARMA S/ORAMLAKHAN VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 35Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED R/OVILLAGE KAIMHADAD, POST TIYARA, P.S.WAIDHAN, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI(MADHYA PRADESH)RAMLAKHAN VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 35Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED R/OVILLAGE KAIMHADAD, POST TIYARA, P.S.WAIDHAN, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI(MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE )
.....APPELLANTS
AND
1.ASHA DEVI PRAJAPATI W/O LATE CHANDRABALIPRASAD PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE HARRAHWA P.O. TIYARA POLICESTATION WAIDHAN DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)PRASAD PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE HARRAHWA P.O. TIYARA POLICESTATION WAIDHAN DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.RITA KUMARI D/O LATE CHANDRABALI PRASADPRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,OCCUPATION: THROUGH THEIR NATURALGUARDIAN MOTHER ASHA DEVI PRAJAPATI R/OVILLAGE HARRAHWA, P.O. TIYARA, P.S.WAIDHAN, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYAPRADESH)PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,OCCUPATION: THROUGH THEIR NATURALGUARDIAN MOTHER ASHA DEVI PRAJAPATI R/OVILLAGE HARRAHWA, P.O. TIYARA, P.S.WAIDHAN, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYAPRADESH)
3.SANGITA KUMARI D/O LATE CHANDRABALI,AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, OCCUPATION: THROUGHTHEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER ASHADEVI PRAJAPATI R/O VILLAGE HARRAHWA, P.O.TIYARA, P.S. WAIDHAN, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, OCCUPATION: THROUGHTHEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER ASHADEVI PRAJAPATI R/O VILLAGE HARRAHWA, P.O.TIYARA, P.S. WAIDHAN, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.SANIT KUMAR PRAJAPATI S/O LATECHANDRABALI PRASAD PRAJAPATI, AGEDABOUT 12 YEARS, OCCUPATION: THROUGHTHEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER ASHADEVI PRAJAPATI R/O VILLAGE HARRAHWA, P.O.TIYARA, P.S. WAIDHAN, DISTRICT SINGRAULI(MADHYA PRADESH)CHANDRABALI PRASAD PRAJAPATI, AGEDABOUT 12 YEARS, OCCUPATION: THROUGHTHEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER ASHADEVI PRAJAPATI R/O VILLAGE HARRAHWA, P.O.TIYARA, P.S. WAIDHAN, DISTRICT SINGRAULI(MADHYA PRADESH)
5.SUKHNANDAN PRAJAPATI S/O LATE MATUK LALPRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O VILLAGEHARRAHWA, P.O. TIYARA, P.S. WAIDHAN,DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O VILLAGEHARRAHWA, P.O. TIYARA, P.S. WAIDHAN,DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6.MANMATIYA PRAJAPATI W/O SUKHNANDANPRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O VILLAGEHARRAHWA, P.O. TIYARA, P.S. WAIDHAN,DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O VILLAGEHARRAHWA, P.O. TIYARA, P.S. WAIDHAN,DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
7.NATIONAL INSURANCE COPANY LIMITEDBRANCH OFFICE, TALI MAIN ROAD WAIDHANP.O. WAIDHAN, DISTRICT SINGRAULI INSURER(MADHYA PRADESH)BRANCH OFFICE, TALI MAIN ROAD WAIDHANP.O. WAIDHAN, DISTRICT SINGRAULI INSURER(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI KAPIL ROHRA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
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.
ORDER
None appears for appellants, even in pass over round.
On previous dates i.e. 04/01/2024 and 04/12/2023 also none appeared on behalf of the appellants, which shows that the appellants have lost their interest in prosecuting the appeal.
Hence, appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Let record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back to the concerned Tribunal alongwith copy of this order.