In a second appeal regarding a land/property claim, the appellant instructed counsel not to prosecute. The High Court treated this as sufficient to dispose of the matter without further order. The appeal was not allowed to proceed due to inaction.
The appeal was disposed of due to the appellant's instruction not to prosecute; no order as to costs.
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.
^) c^^^
PAGENO...l£/......
IN THE HONOUBABLE HIGH COURT OF_CH_HATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. S.B. (CIVIL) S.A. N0. ^65 /2QQ2 ^S§iEi©®ii l APPELLANT DEFENDANT N0.1 ^ Jagannath S/0, Hari Dhurva ; CLAIMANT UNDER ag@ ab@ut 46 years ; fiirmer ODUNIER CLAIM B/0. Vill. Alnar, Tahsil Jagdalpur Distt^ Bastar*
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
: ^,^1) Kurs@ S/0. Jadu Sundi
PLAINTIFF_N0^1
^ aged abeut 41 years;
B/0» Vill. Alnar, Tahsil
€
Jagdalpur Distt^Bastar(C,G,)
r^
RESPONDENT 2) Ash@k Saha S/G, *N@t kn@wn
DEFIsIMDANT N0.2 ^ th^ thcn Asstt, Cfllecter
/
^e^^Z-^^ ^-^. Office @f C@llect©rBastari
^c^-^^ c^-^L^
Distt. Jagdalpur (C.G.)
Aex^'!^^-l-i,
,A^^/Iif-<>-?<rwi1<^A"A1111*;$i£SPONDENT ^\72jL^ ^ * 3) Smt. Gauri Singh W/0. Vijay<br>,^ ^so1'^/EI'EFENDANT^~~~'"'- ""~N@. 3 ^"''•^<, .M3rt^ ^- Singh ; the then Additi®nal|
Gillecter Office @f
Cell@ct@r Bastar Dist»
•^^
Jagdalpur (C»G,)
^
-ov :^C4) The State ®f Chhattisgarh
RESPONDENT o
/ thr@ugh ; C@llect@r Bastar
/DEFENDANT N0.4
District , Jagdalpur (C.G.)
^'
S£COND__APP£AL UNDER SECTION100 BEAD WITH ORDER 42 RULE 1_
CODE
AND ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CXVIL PROCEDURE. /1908.
^y..-^_€"^ ^>
XIHC—78
~3:VS( ^q|^|0A|, ^Tfi^'Ko, fs)01^^<
.VN
'RTOW %W^7 .......^.. ./....zo^/.q^.,Wt 20
3Tlt?T ^'^^ (^^T^T)
| 311^1 ?FTf^lT^ ^T^T ^T^T $ti^i<=b |
'^nW^Rf^T <3;TT^T | ^^f^ih'W^ff^.f^rf-^y^R ^3?rfOT^T^T |
|---|---|---|
| S.B: HON'BLE MRJUSTlG 06.02.2014: |
E SANJAYK.AGRAWAL V. |
|
| Mr. R.N. Jha, counse Mr. SomnathVerma, Mr. SanjeevAgrawal, |
forthe appellant. ^ounselforrespondentNo. 1. PLfortheState. |
|
| or Counsel forthe appej notwantto prosecutethis Baster has passed the passed by the Additional |
confirmed. e ^ |
|
| Prayerjsallowed. | ||
| !n view ofthe submi^ second appeal standsfinalll |
sion made by counsel forthe appeal, the f disposed of. No orderastocosts. |
|
| Certified copy, as per | jrules Sd/- SanjayK.Agrawal Judge |
1:1.«
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal under Order 42 Rule 1 of the CPC should be allowed in view of the appellant's instruction not to prosecute.
Jagannath S/o, Hari Dhurva
Kurs S/o, Jadu Sundi
Ashok Saha
Smt. Gauri Singh
The State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
