The second appeal was dismissed as the counsel for the appellant submitted that he had no instructions to prosecute the appeal. No substantive legal principles were determined.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SA No. 203 of 2011
Rooplal S/o Devdhar Patel, aged about 45 years, Agriculturist R/o Karuvadihi, Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh, C.G.---- Appellant
Versus
1. Kaushal Prasad, S/o Devdhar Patel, aged about 48 years;
2. Samari Bai, W/o Kaushal Prasad, aged about 40 years;
Both are agriculturist, R/o Karuvadihi,
Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh, C.G.
3. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Raigarh, C.G.
---- Respondents
For Appellant :- Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate.
For State/Respondent :- Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board
19/01/2021
1. At the very outset, leaned counsel for the appellant submits that he has no instruction on behalf of the appellant to prosecute the
2
appeal.
2. Accordingly, the instant second appeal is
dismissed as having no instruction to
learned counsel.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Ankit
Rooplal S/o Devdhar Patel
Kaushal Prasad
Samari Bai
State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court