The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the second appeal under Section 100 CPC for want of prosecution due to the appellant's absence and lack of representation at the hearing.
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
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.
©
)^'
(^ ^s\—
APPEJO- «©•6H
©p ^.^ gie 8g
/ ©ukfauRan ©apiason of late Stei Mari Prasael ©upta, afd 7§ yea^s Besi^eRt of Kawasdha, MstiAct KabirdUaaa*
h^
ys&ajs
•!'. j"
(
aartjg ^Nlaan Bai wd.<tow @f I»al~ C^aiadtfamax Kya?Eai, aged ab@ut §7 ye^?8 Resid^at ®fysalapua?^
^'
^
As@op soiiof lat®Stei l>al ©feaad Kii3pa&, ag^d ab©ut38yeai?s Residmat @f Usal^pat^
.^&^' Residmat @f Usal^pat^
^^--"
^^^
^
^0'.^^>V' ©agal soiiof latetal ©handl
^•^v><3
Kva-nii^ aged aboiiit ^ years
^5-
^- R®si€l«aief IIsala@az%
JayaRtira SOB @f late I»al@hand
r^ Kyrai, aged abeut 26 y®ai?s
3?esidmi @f ysal^»u»»
Ctet^G-s"aspu'
Mvya Bai wife @f ®e^E> Itaa
Veasa, aged aboat 4i yars
^esident ef Beharsari
JayaRtira SOB @f late I»al@hand Kyrai, aged abeut 26 y®ai?s 3?esidmi @f ysal^»u»»
^ ^B-fea Bai wif®@f Leelagar Kurai, ageol aboiat 39 yeass A^o-t<^^>.f<fo 6 ,tesidl®nt@t Sukha Tal, Tahsil Kawardha Mstt, Kabirdfaan ( G,@.)i -
^,[<-> /'
Baashi SQU @f Ti^aa Sahu» <ged §§years, Besiden-b of BeejaJhori, Siia@ifaan@U3dL, TahsU Kawa3?dha» msti, Kabirdhaa (6,©»)»
@®t»Bindla Bai wiAiw of
©hanSai, aged 45 years,
BaB^prasad son of Dhan Sal
' -2-
fc^
©
S: 2i:
aged about 12 years minor throughnatural guardian mother- BindabaiA ^' ^<^^6^Au^r^ - ^ <&^, wid©wef ©haiiSai,^Resi€{@at @f ^\^1^ village Jarati*
lj©« Vmeda sonot Tilay Sahia, a®®dI@ yrsy
• 2 to 4 a^o* BeejaJhori, Tah^ Kawardfaa, Mstt» Ka]bia~<3foaBi(C<@»)w
h"^".
11^ S-feate ©fGhhattiSQarh
Throia&h- e©llecior,Kafeirdbaa (G,(a,),
V" ^PPEAL tmSER SgCTIGN J^^ ©FGXVIL PB©eEEVfiE<
^^.i^.^s-v-^^^-—'-
'/"£TV^S"%> '^ y ^'^ vfi> m^: ^- ^- ^1 •>^
\7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR
SINGLE BENCH
HON'BLE MR.T.P. SHARMA. J
S. A.No. 678 of 2003
Appellant
Dukhu Ram Gupta
versus
Resoondent
Appeal underSection 100 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure. 1908
Appearance:
None for the appellant.
Mr. Mahesh Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
(01.09.2014)
Vijay
Sd/T.P. Sharma Judge
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dukhu Ram Gupta
Smt. Ahiman Bai and others
T.P. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
