SMT. MAMTA BAI v. MADHYA PRADESH PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN COMPANY LTD.
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 2024-02-02. SMT. MAMTA BAI v. MADHYA PRADESH PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN COMPANY LTD. Read the judgment and...
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA nd ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 SECOND APPEAL No. 173 of 2017 BETWEEN:- 1. SMT. MAMTA BAI WD/O LATE RAMKARAN BHIL, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: VILLAGE SARSODIYA, TEH. MO. BADODIYA, DISTT. SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. ANJALI THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. MAMTA BAI D/O LATE RAMKARAN BHIL, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT, R/O: VILLAGE SARSODIYA, TEH. MO. BADODIYA, DISTT. SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. RAVINA THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. MAMTA BAI D/O RAMKARAN BHIL, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT, R/O: VILLAGE SARSODIYA, TEH. MO. BADODIYA, DISTT. SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 4. BEERAJ S/O RAMKARAN BHIL, AGED ABOUT 18 Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O: VILLAGE SARSODIYA, TEH. MO. BADODIYA, DISTT. SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 5. BANSHILAL BHIL S/O BHAGIRATH BHIL, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O: VILLAGE SARSODIYA, TEH. MO. BADODIYA, DISTT. SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 6.
SMT. SHAITAN BAI W/O BANSHILAL BHIL, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O: VILLAGE SARSODIYA, TEH. MO. BADODIYA, DISTT. SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) ..... APPELLANTS (NONE FOR APPELLANTS) AND Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE Signing time: 03-02-2024 11:50:01 1. MADHYA PRADESH PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN COMPANY LTD. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER LAL GHATI, SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. THE JUNIOR ENGINEER MADHYA PRADESH PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD. DISTRIBUTION CENTRE MO. BADODIYA, TEHSIL MO. BADODIYA, SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. SHIVENDRA SINGH S/O RAMSINGH RAJPUT ASSISTANT LINEMAN MADHYA PRADESH PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. MO. BADODIYA, TEHSIL BADODIYA, SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) ..... RESPONDENTS This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the following: ORDER None appeared on behalf of the appellant today. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that on 05. 09. 2017, 27. 04. 2019, 02. 07. 2019, 23. 11. 2019 & 16. 01.
2020 also nobody had appeared on behalf of the appellant. Repeated non-appearance of the appellant is sufficient to show that the appellant is not interested to prosecute this second appeal. 3. Hence, this second appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. Let record of both the Courts below be returned back to the concerned trial Court along with a copy of this order. Certified copy as per rules. (ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE Signing time: 03-02-2024 11:50:01 Anushree Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE Signing time: 03-02-2024 11:50:01
Source: High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.