← Library
Patna High CourtFA/150/2017dismiss for nonprosecution

Ranjeet Kumar Rai v. Bangali Mahto And ORS

2024-09-10Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

FIRST APPEAL No.150 of 2017 ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar Rai Son of Girja Rai, Resident of Village- Sabalpur, Western Tola Pachhiyari Tola, P.S.P.O.- Sonepur, District- Saran Chapra. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

Bangali Mahto Son of Late Jageshar Mahto, 2.

Rajan Prasad Mahto, Son of Late Ram Prasad Mahto, 3.

Tajan Prasad, Son of Late Ram Prasad Mahto, 4.

Ashok Kumar Prasad, Son of Late Ram Prasad Mahto, 5.

Pritam Kumar Chandrabanshi, Son of Late Ram Prasad Mahto, 6.

Uttam Kumar Chandrabanshi, Son of Late Ram Prasad Mahto, 7.

Shiv Kumari Devi, Wife of Late Ram Prasad Mahto, 1-7 are resident of Village- Barbatta Pahari Chak, POPS- Sonepur, District- Saran Chapra. 8.

Rajeshwar Prasad Yadav, Son of Late Sannu Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village- Pahari Chak, P.S.- Sonepur, District- Saran Chapra. 9.

Raj Kumar Rai, Son of Late Kishori Rai, 10.

Bablu Kumar Rai, Son of Late Ramashankar Rai, 11.

Raj Kumar Rai, Son of Lal Babu Rai, 12.

Ranjit Kumar, Son of Ram Prabesh Rai, 13.

Vinod Rai, Son of Chandrika Rai, 9 to 13 are resident of Village- Sabalpur, Western Tola Pachhiyari Tola, PSPO- Sonepur, District- Saran Chapra. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 10-09-2024 No one is present on behalf of the appellant.

2. From perusal of the records, it appears that on previous dates i.e. on 16.07.2024 and 13.08.2024 no one was present on behalf of the appellant. It also appears from the perusal of records that the order dated 08.04.2024 has not been complied with as yet.

Patna High Court FA No.150 of 2017(11) dt.10-09-2024 2/2

3. On the previous date, last indulgence was given to the learned counsel for the appellant to comply the previous order dated 08.04.2024 but as per the office notes, there is no compliance of the said order.

4. In view of facts and circumstances that the appellant has lost interest to pursue this case, the present First Appeal is dismissed for default due to non prosecution. (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) Ritik/- U