'€g^h:^. iC.^a^it "'Ciy^ ,«" '«>,:.;.:!!...<i<' :s:|aIK;!i?'^i ;^""Q,<c'? HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH. .BILASPU! Critninoi Caveot Appiicction (Pft) No.3664 of 2008 \ CI<..M? '^< ;^f :& RESPONDENT/: i^avecto! Captain Abhimanyu, S/o Shri AAitrcsen Sindhu, aged about 37 ysars;, R/o 57 Sector 14, Rohtck, i-lcriyana. Versus RESPONDENT/; (Pf-ososed Pet'tioner') Lai, S/o Late Shri Bandhiram Tandon, R/o Viliage Rchtabor, P.S. AAostupi, At present R/o Tarbahar, P.S. Tarbahar, tsistrict Biiaspur (C.G.) (Appiicstion under Section 142 (1) ofthe High Court of Chhattisgarh Ruies, 2007} Ci resenT: None present for the applicant. (9-2-2009) 1. VVhen the psssed over case is caiied out for hearing, nons present for the oppiicant. Mo representation is made. 2. I have psrused the instant caveat application. 3. This caveat application has been filed on 5-9-2008 and none present on behalf of tne app!icant. 4. According to Rula 144 (2) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Ruies, 2007, the ca'/eat iodged under these ruies shali remain in force for a period of 90 da/s. Even in accordance with sub-ruie (2) of Rule 144 of t'ne Rules, 2007, the present caveat appiication is not tenabie. Consequentiy, the ccvect appiication is dismissed summarily. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge 53