fo ;'^^ <0/ IN THE KIGH COURT OE- JUDICA'TURE OP CHHSTTISGARH AT BIIASPUR SEGOND APPEAL N0. /2004 T.,.U{B B*" 9. c. ^o' APPELLANTS PiAINTIFPS' ^.t, .;•• .••"' ^- ,^^-* .^•'•"'"& '??'•"'' ^^•••^y~.-- ^ " ^^.^"" '-^•^ 1. Anand Ram s/o Ferha Satnami since laecessed - through legal representatisea i> Ramkunwar wd/o Anand Ram , Satnama. aged 50 years; li) Anusuiya Bai d/o AnanB Ram •' . satnaml aged 32 years; iii) Atma Ram s/o Anand Ram .••' Satnani aged 26 years; iv) Ramesh Kumar s/o Anandram y--" Satnami aged 23 years All cultj.va1;ors and resident of village Bamhanl Tahsil Baioda Baaar (NewTahsil Palari) Distriet Raipur. 2. tTethiya Bai d/o Berha Satnami /' aged 80 years; 3. Keja Bai <3/o Ferha Satnani 1 aged 50 years, all cultivators and resident or village Banihani (Ol<3 Tahsil Balo<3a Baaar) District Raipur. VERSUS RESPONDENTS DEEE^.FDANTS ^,,,a,4i0 •'; i "^ y,':--^^^' ^^•^ g lai'* t" ' ^ Prenibai socalled <3ispute<3 wife o£ Agar Singh Satnami aged 60 years 2. Sadhram s/o Gyansingh (socalled dispufeed son o£ Agarsingh Satnami) aged 32 years, both cultivataj^ and resident of. village Baloi3i.;lr- Tahsil (New Tahsil palari), - BalodaBaaar, District Ralpur 3. Bhaga.i.ya Bai d/o Mangalcharri Satnami aged 48 years, eultivator and resident of village Bamhanl Tahsil Baloda Bazar (New Tabsil Palari), Disferict Raipur 4. State of Chhattisgarh through the Colleetor, Raipur, Dlstrict Ralpur. Cont<3.... 2 I -2-: ,//" ^ CLAIM IN APPEAL U/S 100 CODE. OF CIVIL PROCEDURE <SOR BEeLARATIQN OF TCTLE HOU3XN3 THE IMPUOffiD Ota33ER PASSED BY NAIB^TAHSILDAR IS XLIEGAL M'10^ PERMANENT'INJCTICTION, PARTITION SBPARATB POSSSSSION VSLUEDAT RS. e,240/- (RUPEES SXK THOUSAITO TWO HUNDRED FORTy) COURT 1'EES AFPXXED RS. 630/- (RUPBES SIX MUNDRED AND THXRTY) (AS XN TBB COURT BELOW) rs9&- f ;::!.;:.F).S!<<"y7.Hr- ;"--«i('''^ '•"" ^ .j.-n^.—. ii,t:!S8's:»tl!nr-.. •;??i 7?! f'SW :T aR?I si^R? 3^ •<{!^|ir!'li, ^fli-'-i'ifi, fe-ti^y, ^•..:..A.L'^G?.:}.1Q/^... Sf^f -q^V (Tjqfg^q) 'iTCRWR ^r^f'<'TCT^? '^r'-T^ '"f f^^' ^f^s'n' •^-3lfim an^! S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prasliant Kumar Mishra 24-6-2010 No one appears for the af^pellants. Shri Sanjeev Agraw^l, Panel State/respondent No.4. No one appears for other tespondents. Lawyer for the The matter was passec| over once in absence of any representation on behalf of the ^ppellants. No one appears for the appellants even in the second call. In the circumstance, therie is no other optiori left with the Court but to dismiss the appeal fbr want of prosecution. The second appeal is disn|issed for want of prosecution. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ,£ 1.