Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Chattisgarh High Court

Narendra Verma And Another vs Dhirendra Verma And Others 51 ... on 20 June, 2019

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                                1
                                                WPC No.6226 of 2007

                                                              NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       WPC No. 6226 of 2007

1.   Narendra Verma, S/o Haridev Verma, aged about 69 years.

2.   Smt. Rajwati W/o Shri Haridev Verma,

     Both R/o Kewramundapara, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar C.G.

                                                      ---- Petitioner

                             Versus

1.   Dhirendra Verma (Dead) through Legal Heirs

1A   Smt. Vijaya Verma, W/o Dhirendra Verma

1B   Bhaomik Verma, S/o Late Dhirendra Verma

1C   Kumari Bhavna, D/o Late Dhirendra Verma

1D   Kumari Saifali, D/o Dhirendra Verma

1E   Kumari Deepali, D/o Dhirendra Verma

     All are R/o village Bhairamgarh, Bijapur, Dist. Dantewada
     (CG).

2.   Ravindra Verma S/o Shri Haridev Verma,                      R/o
     Kewramundapara, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar C.G.

3.   Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur istrict - Bastar C.G.

4.   Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, C.G.

5.   Assistant Superintendent At Land Record Nazul. Jagdalpur,
     District - Bastar C.G.

                                                  ---- Respondent



For Petitioners              Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent/State         Shri Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer
                                  2
                                                  WPC No.6226 of 2007

                          Order On Board

                                By

                    Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

20/06/2019

1. Learned counsel appears and pleads no instructions in the matter. No other counsel appears on behalf of the petitioners to prosecute the case.

2. Since there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners, this Court is left with no option except to dismiss this petition for want of prosecution.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Sd/-

Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Gowri