Madhya Pradesh High Court
SA/181/2021 of RAGHVENDRA SINGH JUDEO Vs SMT. DILHAR KUMARI on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)ON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 181 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1.RAGHVENDRA SINGH JUDEO S/O LATE SHRIMAHARAJ MANVENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 46YEAR S, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VIJAYMANDIR PALACE TAH. AND DISTT. PANNA(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.CHATARSAL SINGH S/O RAGHVENDRA SINGHJUDEO, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, OCCUPATION:MINOR THR. GUARDIAN SMT. JITESHWARI DEVIAGRICULTURIST VIJAY MANDIR PALACE TAH.AND DISTT. PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE)AND1.SMT. DILHAR KUMARI W/O LATE SHRI MAHARAJMANVENDRA SINGH JUDEO, AGED ABOUT 70YEARS, RAJ MANDIR PALACE TAH. ADN DISTT.PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)AND1.SMT. DILHAR KUMARI W/O LATE SHRI MAHARAJMANVENDRA SINGH JUDEO, AGED ABOUT 70YEARS, RAJ MANDIR PALACE TAH. ADN DISTT.PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
2.KRISHNA KUMARI D/O LATE SHRI MANVENDRASINGH JUDEO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, KOTIPRESENT RESIDENT RAJ MANDIR PALACE TEH.AND DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)SINGH JUDEO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, KOTIPRESENT RESIDENT RAJ MANDIR PALACE TEH.AND DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR DISTT. PANNA(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SHESHMANI MISHRA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENTNO.3/STATE)
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
No one is present for the appellants, even in the passover round.On previous date also i.e. 28/04/2022 no one appeared for the appellants,which shows that the appellants have lost interest in prosecuting the appeal.Hence, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
as
(AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))JUDGE