Chattisgarh High Court
Mangal Prasad Yadav vs Managing Director And Ors. 30 ... on 19 September, 2018
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
FA No. 150 of 2014
• Mangal Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Janki Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Kot, Tahsil
Lundra, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh
----Appellant
Versus
1. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. General Manager Jila Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramin Vikas Bank, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh
3. District Deputy Registrar Sahakari Sanstha, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh
4. Branch Manager/sales Officer Jila Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit,
Branch Lundra, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh
5. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Surguja- Ambikapur Chhattisgarh
6. Makhan S/o Sundara Uraw Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Kot, Tah. Lundra, Distt.
Surguja, Chhattisgarh
7(a) Mayaso Bai @ Banjhi Konheen W/o Moti Ram Aged About 37 Years
7 (b) Balhan S/o Moti Ram Aged About 19 Years
7 (c) Salhan S/o Moti Ram Aged About 15 Years
7 (d) Salman S/o Moti Ram Aged About 10 Years
7 (e) Nano Bai D/o Late Shri Moti Ram Aged About 8 Years
7 (f) Dhili Bai D/o Moti Ram Aged About 12 Years
7 (g) Mucho Bai D/o Moti Ram Aged About 14 Years
Respondent No.7 (c) to 7 (g) Through Natural guardian mother- Mother Smt. Mayaro Bai @
Manjhi, widow of Moti Ram Respondent No.7 (a) to 7 (g) are R/o Village- Kot, Tah. Lundra, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh 7 (h)Heeramani @ Guddi D/o Moti Ram Aged About 22 Years R/o Partipara, Tah. Sitapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents 19/09/2018 None for the appellant.
Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Sunil Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No.2. Shri Neeraj Sharma, dy. GA for the State. The matter was passed over once in absence of any representation on behalf of the appellant. No one appears for the appellant even in the second call.
In the circumstances, there is no other option left with the Court but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Sd/-
Goutam Bhaduri Judge ashu