Dismissed¶19

Raghunandan v. Vinod Paswan

Chhattisgarh HC16 Jan 2025ACQA/17/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for want of prosecution; appellant non-appearance despite repeated calls; appeal of 2018 abandoned due to efflux of time; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; ACQA No. 17 of 2018; Raghunandan (appellant, Durg/Bhilai) versus Vinod Paswan (respondent); single Bench of Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey; decided 17.01.2025; no counsel for either party; no statutory provisions or case law cited.

What did the court decide?

As no one appeared for the appellant despite repeated calls and the appellant had lost interest in pursuing the 2018 appeal due to efflux of time, the Court had no other option except to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. ¶18

Raghunandan Vs Vinod Paswan — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:3206

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 17 of 2018

¶6

Raghunandan S/o Late Umashankar Singh, aged about 62 years, R/o Quarter No. 8, Road No. 18, Sector 10, Bhilai Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.)

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Vinod Paswan S/o Ganesh Gahlot, aged about 35 years, R/o 107/A, Zone-2, Khursipar, Bhilai, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.)

¶10

		... Respondent
For Appellant	: None.
For Respondent	: None.

¶11

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

17.01.2025

¶14

The matter is listed for final hearing, even on 03.01.2025, and today no one appeared on behalf of the appellant despite

¶15

¶16

repeated calls, nor is any representation made in this behalf.

¶17

It transpires from the record and prayer made in the appeal that the present appeal is of the year 2018 and the appellant has lost interest in pursuing the matter due to efflux of time.

¶18