Shri Ram General Insurance Company v. Smt.Saraswati Sahu And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 633 of 2014 Shri Ram General Insurance Company Thru - Branch Manager, Office - 1st Floor, Plot No. 48, M. P. Nagar, Zone - 2, Bhopal M. P., At Present Sitapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

---- Appellant

Versus

1. Smt. Saraswati Sahu W/o Salil Sahu Aged About 36 Years.

2. Subhashini Sahu W/o Bidur Sahu @ Vaidhar Aged About 61 Years. Both are R/o Padampur, Bhandaridiha, P.S. Dhasipura, Distt. Kewjhar Udishi, At Present- Shanti Nagar, Deepka, Tah. Katghora, Distt. Korba C.G.

3. Suresh Kumar Das S/o Rupchand Das Aged About 46 Years R/o Beltikari Basahat, Deepika, Distt. Korba C.G., At Present- Naya Vashiho, Raipur Road, Simga, Distt. Raipur C.G.

-----Respondents For Appellant : Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri PR Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice & Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J 19.11.2020

1. Today, case is listed for orders on default regarding non-compliance of the order passed by this Court on 28.09.2020.

2. On 26.09.2018, the learned Single Judge ordered for issuance of notice on correct address, but said order was not complied with by the appellant. Thereafter, case was listed on 28.11.2018 for order on default, learned counsel appearing for the appellant sought three weeks' time to remove the default. Again when the case was listed on 07.02.2019, learned counsel appearing for the appellant again sought time to remove the default of non-compliance of the order dated 26.09.2018. On 14.08.2020, learned counsel for the appellant again sought time to remove the default of non-compliance of the said order. When the case came up for hearing before this Court on 28.09.2020, learned counsel for the appellant submits

that even after best efforts correct address of respondent could not be traced out and sough time to file appropriate application for service of notice by substituted mode.

3. When the case is taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has prepared necessary application and forwarded the same to the appellant but till date he has not received any response from the appellant.

4. Looking to the aforesaid facts that the appellant failed to pay process fee as directed by the learned Single Judge vider order dated 26.09.2018 and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, it appears that appellant has lost interest in pursuing this appeal.

5. In view of above, appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court.

Sd/- Sd/- (P. R. Ramachandra Menon ) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Jamal/-