;»<-} .. .. .j .;..;..„„. C^r<^- •^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. ^^Jo> /2003 MANSUKHDAS AGRAWAL AGED 4^ YEARS SON OF LATE LAXMINARAYAN AGRAWAL, RESIDENT OF STATION ROAD, RAIPUR, (CG).^.^^p^iMW' ^^^- A-iZ^o-^Ot-^q ^uy^-t^.*^ C*^-' f. R . W. M--4r-fc-^;^:^^:" vs. Preswt«<fev Shr}...^Jf.^S^L^.^... da<e<l-T^I^^mDfi'R AGRAWAL, AGED 49 YEARS SON OF SHIV PRASAD AGRAWAL RESIDENT OF CHAROUDA, DURG PETITIONER DEFENDANT N0.1, ^ .''..: 2.JUTENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, AGED D28 YEARS SON OF MADANLAL AGRAWAL RESIDENT OF CRAROUDA, E G. ^t ^•c.. w^! .^^:-:^3.SMT. MANJU KUMARI WIFE OF^URESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, l37 YEARS, SARDARIMAL ^AGRAWAL, R/0. CHAROUDA, DURG. 4. SANJU KUMARI AGRAWAL, AGED 35 YEARS D/0. MADANLAL AGRAWAL, R/O.CHAROUDA, DURG. 5. NINJU KUMARI GARG W/0. SURESH KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS R/O.CHAROUDA, DURG. A 6. KU. SEEMA AGRAWAL WIFE OF SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL, C/0. MADANLAL AGRAWAL, AGED 32 YEARS, R/0. AGRAWAL MEDICAL STORES, G- ROAD, BUS STAND, CHAROUDA, DISTRICT DURG. .' .A.'y -\ ». •* .„.:' •^.tf t.,:&^''' •.^^•" 7. SMT. MANJU KUMARI MODI, W/0. SURESH KUMAR MODI, AGED 37 YEARS, R/0. SHIVMNARAYAN, BILASPUR, CG. PLAINTIFFS 8. SMT. VEENAKUMARI AGRAWAL, W/0. M.L. AGRAWAL, AGED 62 YEARS, R/0. BHANDARA, GONDIA (MH) 9. SMT. CHARULATA BEN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS W/0. DEEPAK KUMARI PATEL R/0. NEW TIMBER MARKET, FAFADIH, RAIPUR(CG) 10. NARAYANJI PATEL AGED 45 YEARS, R/0. NEW TIMBER MARKET, FAFADIH, RAIPUR(CG) 5 11. SURYAKANT RATHORE S/0 LATE MURLIDHAR RATHORE, R/0. STATION ROAD, RAIPUR (CG) RESPONDENTS DEFE1WANTS 12. SHANKAR RAO MEDHE, S/0. LATE NARAYAN RAO MEDHE, R/0. KELKAR PARA, RAIPUR (CG) s 'v-^ 13. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, RAIPUR. RgSBOSD@?SS;... DBFENDANTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA tl; HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmONNo, 2519 of2003 PETITIONER DEFENDANT N0. 1 RESPONDENT8 Mansukhdas Agrawal. VERSU8 Shyamsunder Agrawal & Others. -r WMTPEnBONUNDERART!CLE227QF^TiiECONSTrnjTIONOF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Slui Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: None for the petitioner. Sliri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondent No.13 K- ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 25th day of October, 2010) The matter is called for hearing. None appears nor is any representation made on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner may not be interested in pui-sumg the matter. In view of the above, the matter is dismissed for want of prosecution, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit