Dismissed¶37

Deleted (Gautam Bai) (Died) v. Melanram (Died and Deleted) Through legal heirs

Chhattisgarh HC14 Apr 2026SA/277/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; SA No. 277 of 2019; Second Appeal dismissed as withdrawn; withdrawal application dated 02/04/2026 allowed on ground of amicable settlement between parties; order dated 15/04/2026 by Bibhu Datta Guru, J.; appellants Surendra, Meghaiya Bai, Badan Bai, Virendra, Vikram, Devki, Sabita and Sarita (heirs of deleted appellant Gautam Bai) versus heirs of deleted respondent Melanram (Devmati, Anil, Sukrita, Naresh, Sandip, Laxmin and minor Anshu Satnami) and State of Chhattisgarh; Ankur Seth for appellants, Amit Kumar for private respondents, Malay Jain Panel Lawyer for State; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the Second Appeal; appeal dismissed as withdrawn pursuant to the amicable settlement between the parties. ¶37

Deleted (Gautam Bai) (Died) Vs Melanram (Died and Deleted) Through legal heirs — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

2026:CGHC:17029

SOURABH BHILWAR

Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.04.15 17:24:21 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

SA No. 277 of 2019

¶8

1 - Deleted (Gautam Bai) (Died) Honble Court Order Dated 28/02/2023. 1.A Surendra S/o Late Dukhiram, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Banshapur, Tahsil Pandariya, Disrict Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶9

1.B Meghaiya Bai W/o Ramji, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Banshapur, Tahsil Pandariya, Disrict Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶10

1.C Badan Bai W/o Late Ashok Kumar, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Banshapur, Tahsil Pandariya, Disrict Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶11

1.D Virendra S/o Late Ashok Kumar, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Banshapur, Tahsil Pandariya, Disrict Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶12

1.E Vikram S/o Late Ashok Kumar, R/o Village Banshapur, Tahsil Pandariya, Disrict Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶13

1.F Devki D/o Late Ashok Kumar, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Banshapur, Tahsil Pandariya, Disrict Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶14

1.G Sabita D/o Late Ashok Kumar, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Banshapur, Tahsil Pandariya, Disrict Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶15

1.H Sarita D/o Late Ashok Kumar, Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Banshapur, Tahsil Pandariya, Disrict Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶16

... Appellant(s)

¶17

versus

¶18

1 - Melanram (Died And Deleted) Through Legal Heirs In Compliance of Hon’ble Court Order Dated 08-10-2024.

¶19

1(A) Smt. Devmati Satnami D/o Late Melanram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Chatarkhar, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶20

¶21

1(B) Anil Satnami S/o Late Melanram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Chatarkhar, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶22

1(C) Smt. Sukrita Satnami D/o Late Melanram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Chatarkhar, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶23

1(D) Naresh Satnami S/o Late Melanram Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Chatarkhar, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶24

1(E) Sandip Satnami S/o Late Melanram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chatarkhar, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶25

1(F) Ku. Laxmin Satnami D/o Late Melanram Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Chatarkhar, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶26

1(G) Ku. Anshu Satnami D/o Late Melanram Aged About 16 Years R/o Village Chatarkhar, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (Minor Through Natural Guardian Her Brother 1(D) )

¶27

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶28

... Respondents

¶29

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶30

For Appellant	: Mr. AnkurSeth,Advocate
For Private Respondents	: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent/ State	: Mr. Malay Jain,Panel Lawyer

¶31

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board

¶32

15/04/2026

¶33

Heard on the application dated 02/04/2026 filed by the appellant for withdrawal of the present Second Appeal.

¶34

At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present appeal on the ground that the parties have settled their dispute amicably, for which the abovementioned application has also been moved by the appellant.

¶35

¶36

In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, on due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

¶37

Accordingly, the instant Second Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶38

Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶39

$. Bhilwar

Deleted (Gautam Bai) (Died) v. Melanram (Died and Deleted) Through legal heirs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deleted (Gautam Bai) (Died) v. Melanram (Died and Deleted) Through legal heirs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdamba Prasad Vs Ishwar Farmaniya

A. F. Rabinson (Died and Deleted) through Lrs Vs Sunil Medhekar

Uma Baghel Vs Rajat Maglan

Ashok Kumar Gayakwad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pransai Vs Bandhan Son of Govind (Died) 1.A Basanti

Nutan Vs Premendra