Smt. Sanjukata Kunwar And ORS. v. Shyam Bihari Paswan Andors

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC. No. 1083 of 2013

1. Smt. Sanjukata Kunwar W/o Late Chandrashekhar Aged About 25 Years, Occupation- House wife.

2. Minor Sachi S/o Late Chandrashekhar Aged About 4 Years.

3. Minor Ku. Neha D/o Late Chandrashekhar Aged About 3 Years.

4. Minor Ku. Nidhi D/o Late Chandrashekhar Aged About 1 Years. Appellants No.2 to 4 are minor Thru- Mother, Smt. Sanjukata Kunwar.

5. Bhulethan @ Nand Kishor Dhurra Aged About 60 Years, Occupation Labour.

6. Smt. Labhodevi W/o Bhulethan Aged About 55 Years. All are Caste Dusad, R/o Pithampur, P.S. Barun, Distt. Aurangabad Bihar, Presently Address- Gaurakha, Tah. Raigarh, Civil and Revenue Distt. Raigarh C.G.

---- Appellants

Versus

1. Shyam Bihari Paswan S/o Santosh Paswan Aged About 40 Years, Occupation Driver, R/o Sayedpur, P.S. Kutumba, Distt. Aurangabad, Bihar, Presently AddressGaurakha, Kotraroad, Raigarh, Tah. Raigarh, Civil and Revenue Distt. Raigarh C.G.

2. Anjani Kumar S/o Rajkumar Agrawal, Occupation Businessman, R/o Gervani, P.S. Punjipathra, Raigarh, Civil and Revenue Distt. Raigarh C.G.

3. Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insu. Co. Ltd., G.E. Plaza, Airport Road, Yarvada Pune Maharashtra 411006, Thru- Branch Office, 11 Floor, Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur, Civil and Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G.

4. Superintendent Engineer Chhattisgarh State Vidhyut Vitaran Company Maryadit, Raigarh Vitra Office Near Gopi Talkies, Raigarh, Civil and Revenue Distt Raigarh C.G.

5. Assistant Engineer Gramin Chhattisgarh State Vidhyut Vitaran Company Maryadit, Raigarh Vitra Office Near Gopi Talkies, Raigarh, Civil and Revenue Distt. Raigarh C.G.

---- Respondents For Appellants : None.

For Respondents : None.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order o n Board /05/2019

1. When the appeal is called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. Even in the second call, there is no representation on behalf of the appellants.

2. In view of the above, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd /- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Jamal