Dismissed
Nazima Begum and Others v. Abdul Zaheer and Others
Chhattisgarh HCSA/507/1994
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
C?Cf’1rif x) V r \%‘ r I ‘W Swag V ( a yam?)…
What the court decided
AI extract
C?Cf’1rif x) V r \%‘ r I ‘W Swag V ( a yam?)…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
a‘ r r I W V V k C?Cf’1rif K? ‘ x) V %‘ Swag (a yam?) CHM“ IN THh HIGH CGJRT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALI'UR 7 l/Il/I//IIII/llllllll/ sgcom APPEAL 7N0. E’O? /I/II 01577 /" "(XI If” I , yv . ‘ l. Nazima Begum, widow of shri Abdul Hameed, aged about 40 years; resident of: Chuchuhiapara, Bllaspur, Tahsll alnd Dlstrlct B11 aspur, Mi P 2. Usrat Rehan, aged about .10 son of Shri Abdul Hameed y 3. Aadil Rehan, aged all) ut 8 2/, son of Shrn. Abdul Hameed year's, daughtér.o£ mi Abc'iu1 Hameed,~ years, daughter of Shrl Abdul z Hameed ‘ 6. Kaushar Tamanna, aged about 12 years, daughter of Shri Abdul 1 ‘j/I-‘I’ameed, ’ '7 7. Yaasmeen Begum, aged about 12 J(/,/"""i-lameed, 'Beh‘ana 8 . Begum, aged 5 yaasst daughter of Shri Abdul Hameed I Appellants he. 2 to 13 all Enihor'rs“ ; Contingedon, pag'e‘ no. 2.
(2)
through guardianmgther Nazmabegin, residéat0fChu- chuhiapara,,Bilaspur, Tahsil and District.Bil aspur,Mm. . . . APPELLANTS PEAWi T?F§. VERsés. WV“ / Abdul Zaheer, aged;about 27 Ll. 0% ‘ years, AbdulRafeeqKhau”aged about i 35 years, V Both sans of Late iAbdulGha£oor, r, ’ / .(BotkV resmentofJunaBllaspur, Tahs1l / \Befendants)‘ [giya‘ndDistrict‘Bil aspur, M.P. 3., Azra Begum, aged Jbout24 years, wife of Iqbal, residentofUmarkot, IahsilUmarko£, D;stri¢§Koghpur, 7 € or issa. /,. 1 QJ. Saira BegumwifeéfSiddique,‘aged about 22 years, r sideht o‘f Kumhar JunaBilaspur,Tahsil and pa£a, DistrictBilaspur, NLP / ShabnamBegumm . of whammad Yunus, agedabau 20 years‘, residentof villi; ge and‘Postl Umarkot, Distric Koghpur, ¥ ' v ‘ REs-Bm’mms. f arissa. ; Respondents no. to 5 were plaintiffsm. 9 10 ll respectwely. Continqéd6h page; no; 3;,
(3):
MmMEMOBAmUM OF SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION .160
JUDGEOFWM 6LASS 2 BILASPUB IN CIVIL SUIT m 13-3A’ l973$gmsm- THE: pLAxmr IFF'S SUIT wR EVICTION mm THE SUIT PREMISES AND ABREARS OF BENT.
n gm WW . , -w,.A_,, “Ad,
$.B. Hon’ble Shri Justice Prasl 1am Kumar Mishra " a5.03.201a.
None For the appellants. 8m Devendra Patel, sou e1 fur the respondents. No ane appears an bah W of t e appenants even ¥n {he secend round tn press this app al. int e cércumstance ihis Court t is lef? with no other optiun, but ta dismiss the appeal for want‘af prosecution.
Accordmgly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
r Q53}:1345‘ Ln .Awrugw R‘s-v. _.‘ uk ,
»:,.k
i ( Sd/PrashantKumarMishra _Judge
E:,ro
Nazima Begum
Abdul Zaheer
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court