Dismissed¶31

Ramkripal Lodhi v. Ramfal Lodhi

Chhattisgarh HC9 Sept 2025FA/125/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; FA No. 125 of 2017; First Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution on 10/09/2025; counsel for appellants (Neeraj Choubey) reported having no instructions; appellants Ramkripal Lodhi, Rajeshwari Lodhi, Devjani Lodhi, Mithila Bai; respondents Ramfal Lodhi, Jawahar Lal Lodhi, Ramkali, Munni Bai, State of Chhattisgarh; bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal and Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ.; DB order; neutral reference 2025:CGHC:46084-DB; no merits decided, no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Since learned counsel for the appellants had no instructions, the Court was left with no other option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. ¶30

Ramkripal Lodhi Vs Ramfal Lodhi — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:46084-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

FA No. 125 of 2017

¶6

1. Ramkripal Lodhi, S/o Ramfal Lodhi, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Nagar Panchayat Bodari, Ward No.10, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2. Smt. Rajeshwari Lodhi, D/o Ramfal Lodhi, Aged About 26 Years, W/o Shri Atish Lodhi, R/o Old Sarkanda, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

3. Smt. Devjani Lodhi, D/o Ramfal Lodhi, Aged About 20 Years, W/o Shri Rajesh Lodhi, R/o Jhopadapara, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

4. Smt. Mithila Bai, D/o Ramfal Lodhi, Aged About 22 Years, W/o Shri Sanjay Lodhi, R/o Village Motipur, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Appellants/Plaintiffs

¶11

versus

¶12

1. Ramfal Lodhi, S/o Shivnarayan Lodhi, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Nagar Panchayat Bodri, Ward No.10, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

2. Jawahar Lal Lodhi, D/o Heeralal Lodhi, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Tifra, Infront Of Kalimandir, Manadol, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

3. Ramkali, D/o Late Shivnarayan Lodhi, Aged About 40 Years, W/o Biharilal Lodhi, R/o Bazar Charbhata, Kawardha, District Kawardha, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

4. Munni Bai, D/o Late Shivnarayan Lodhi, Aged About 55 Years, W/o Ram Pratap Lodhi, R/o Bazar Charbhata, Kawardha, District Kawardha, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

5. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

... Respondents/Defendants

¶18

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶19

For Appellants : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate. For Respondents No.1, 3 & 4 : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate.

¶20

Digitally DEEPTI signed by JHA DEEPTI JHA

¶21

¶22

For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.5 : Mr. R. S. Marhas, Addl. A.G.

¶23

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &

¶24

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶25

Order On Board

¶26

10/09/2025

¶27

1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that he

¶28

has no instructions on behalf of the appellants in the present case.

¶29

2. In view of above submission made by the counsel for appellants, this Court is

¶30

left with no other option, but to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.

¶31

3. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶32

Sd/Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

Ramkripal Lodhi v. Ramfal Lodhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkripal Lodhi v. Ramfal Lodhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meghuram Sahu Vs Jitendra Yadav

Bgr Mining and Infra Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bgr Mining and Infra Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Principal Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise Vs M/S Mahamaya Ispat

M/S Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax

M/S Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax