@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DlVHSlON BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE $HR§ RIAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. §=§ON’B‘LE sHRI SUNIL KUMAR $INHA, J. Misc. Appea! No. 327 of 2004. Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. s Present : Shri A.S. Iqbal, learned counsel forthe appellants. ORDER (24th July,‘2oos) Appeiiant Kumari Durga Rajvanshi, aged 15 CEa€man€ D/o Manoranjan Rajvanshi, Minor, behalf of the minor appellant the next friend father self Manoranjan Rajvanshi Slo Jaichand Rajvanshi, aged 4O years, resident of Mana Colony, Post-Mane Basti, Thana—Mana Camp,_ Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.). VERsUS Respondents Krishna Kumar Sahu, aged 21 years Non-Appiicants S/o Dayaram Sahu, Occupation — Tractor Driver, resident of Gram Banrasi, Post-Mana Camp, Tahsii & Distt. Raipur (QC-3.). Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Dayaram Sahu, Occupation Tractor Owner, _ resident of viiiage — Banjari, Post Bhatagaon, Tah. & Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.). 3. The New india insurance Co. Ltd Through : Divisionai Manager, Divisional Office, Kachehari Chowk Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) Cover Note No. 113056, Limitation from 19—9-2001 to 18—9-2002, office which issued Insurance Policy — Bajrang Market, Raipur, Distt, Raipur (66.) The foilewing orde of the Court was passed by r Rajeev Gupta; C.J. This matter is listed today for orders on the appeiiant’s efault in taking steps n compliance of the order dated d i 27.11.2006 for service of the notice of the appeai on the respondents. 2) This Court vide order dated 27.1 1 .2006 white admitting the appeal for hearing directed the appellant to take steps for service of he notice of th appeal as per rules. t e 3) Though a period of more than 2 1/2 years has elapsed since the passing of the order dated 2?.1 1 .2006, the appeiiant has not ‘ taken any steps by paying process fee in spite of grant of oportunity in that behalf by the Additional Registrar (Judicial) on p 22. 1 2.2006. 4) As the appellant has not taken any steps in compliance of the order dated 27.1 1 .2006 for service of the notice of the appeal on the respondents, we are left with no other option, but to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance of the order dated 27.1 1 .2006. 5) The appeal, therefore, is dismissed for non—compliance of i subbu the order dated 27.1 1 .2006. .o y’”j[:::;>‘d/‘gzae.r_’~‘k Sdl- 2/, Sdl- - .L l ’ SgnilKumarSinha l Judge /‘ Chief JuStice - l l