Dismissed¶33

Anjori v. Jethiya Bai

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jan 2026SA/383/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SA No. 383 of 2006; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge; order dated 14/01/2026; 2026:CGHC:2188; NAFR; dismissal for want of prosecution; non-appearance of counsel; appellants: Anjori, Milan, Dulari, Ramprasad (Khairbanakala, Kawardha, Kabirdham); respondents incl. Jethiya Bai, Kodiya Bai, Hariram, State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Kabirdham, Raghubar Prasad; counsel: Mr. Ritesh Giri, P.L. (for State), Ms. Kajal Chandra (for Resp. 6, 7(A)(B)(C)).

What did the court decide?

Since no one appeared for the appellants despite repeated calls, leaving the Court with no other option, the appeal (SA No. 383 of 2006) was dismissed for want of prosecution; the merits were not examined. ¶33

Anjori Vs Jethiya Bai — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

2026:CGHC:2188

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

SA No. 383 of 2006

¶6

1. Anjori S/o Shri Chherku Sahu Aged About 66 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Villge Khairbanakala, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶7

Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.15 10:29:02 +0530

¶8

2. Milan S/o Shri Anjori Sahu, Aged About 46 Years Occupation Agruculturist, R/o Village Khairbanakala, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶9

3. Dulari D/o Shri Anjori Sahu, Aged About 37 Years Occupation Agruculturist R/o Village Khairbanakala, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶10

4. Ramprasad S/o Shri Anjori Sahu, Aged About 27 Years Occupation Agruculturist R/o Village Khairbanakala, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶11

... Appellant(s)

¶12

versus

¶13

1. Jethiya Bai W/o Mukhiram Sahu Aged About 69 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Jebdankala, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶14

2. Kodiya Bai W/o Shri Najroo Sahu, Aged About 54 Years Occupation Agruculturist R/o Village Bhagotola, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶15

3. Hariram S/o Shri Chherku Sahu, Aged About 51 Years Occupation Agruculturist R/o Village Kharbankala, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶16

4. Mango Bai (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 27-022019

¶17

5. Jhadi (Died And Deleted)

¶18

5. (a) Smt. Suruj Bai (Died And Deleted)

¶19

5. (b) Chowa Ram S/o Late Jhadi, Aged About 50 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village-Khairbanakala, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G)

¶20

5. (c) Bhola S/o Late Jhadi, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Khairbanakala, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G)

¶21

6. Babulal S/o Shri Shyamlal Agrawal, Aged About 54 Years Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Khairbanakala, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶22

¶23

7 (A) Munna S/o Late Shri Nanuk Aged About 49 Years Caste Gupta, Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Mainpuri, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶24

7. (B) Bade Douwa S/o Late Shri Nanuk, Aged About 47 Years Caste Gupta, Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Mainpuri, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶25

7. (C) Chhote Douwa, S/o Nanuk, Aged About 45 Years Caste Gupta, Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Mainpuri, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶26

8. Krishnakali W/o Shri Santram Sahu, Aged About 44 Years Caste Gupta, Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Khairbanakala,tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶27

9. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Kabirdham (C.G.) 10. Raghubar Prasad S/o Ramroop Pandey, Aged About 69 Years Caste Gupta, Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Lastola, Presently R/o Telipara, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶28

	... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s)	: None
For Respondent/ State	: Mr. Ritesh Giri, P.L.
For Respondents No. 6, 7(A) (B)(C)	: Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate

¶29

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶30

Order on Board

¶31

14/01/2026

¶32

On repeated calls, no one appears on behalf of the appellant to prosecute the matter. Since no one is appearing, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the case for want of prosecution.

¶33

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE

¶36

Jyoti

Anjori v. Jethiya Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjori v. Jethiya Bai

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

Ravi Shankar And Ors. Vs Vimal Kumar And Ors.

Mu. Hemo Bai Vs Kaushilya Bai

Rajendra Kumar Upadhyay Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Power Limited (C.S.P.D.C.L.)

Lileshwari Vs Kheduram

Chamru Alias Charan Sai Vs Smt. Sushila

Smt. Suchi Shukla Vs Smt. Rekha Pandey