DAGA METAL AGENCY, RAIPUR v. DURGA PRASAD VERMA and ORS
Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh
Bench: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RAJANI DUBEY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Chhattisgarh judgment dated 2024-03-20. DAGA METAL AGENCY, RAIPUR v. DURGA PRASAD VERMA and ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR FA No. 19 of 2008 Daga Metal Agency, Raipur through Proprietor Sharad Daga, aged about 50 years, S/o Shri Punam Chand Daga, occupation Utensils business, r/o Budapara Raipur, Tahsil and District - Raipur (C. G) ----Appellant Defendant No. 1 Versus 1 - Durga Prasad Varma, aged 77 years, S/o Tika Ram Kasar, utensil business, resident of Polsai Para, P. S. Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C. G. ) 2 - Kamta Prasad, aged 54 years, S/o Durga Prasad Kasar, Utencil business, resident of Polsai Para, P. S. Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C. G. ) 3 - Dhanna Lal Verma, aged 46 years, S/o Durga Prasad Kasar, Utencil business, resident of Polsai Para, P. S. Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C. G. ) 4 - Purushottam Das, aged about 42 years, S/o Durga Prasad Kasar, Utencil business, resident of Polsai Para, P. S. Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C. G. ) 5 - Mukesh Kumar Verma, aged 38 years, S/o Durga Prasad Kasar, Utencil business, resident of Polsai Para, P.
S. Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C. G. ) 6 - Santosh Kumar, aged 32 years, S/o Durga Prasad Kasar, Utencil business, resident of Polsai Para, P. S. Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C. G. ) 7 – Pradeep Kumar Daga, aged about 36 years, S/o Punamchand Daga, utensil business, resident of Budapara Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C. G. ) ………... (Defendant No. 2) ---- Respondents Plaintiffs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : None. For Respondents No. 1 to 6 : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 20. 03. 2024 1. Even after repeated calls and also on the last date of hearing i. e. on 11. 07. 2022, 11. 11. 2022 and 27. 01. 2023 no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, nor any representation is made in this behalf. 2.
It transpires from the record that the instant appeal is of the year 2008 and the appellant has lost interest in pursuing the matter due to efflux of time. 3. In view of above, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss this appeal. 4. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed in default. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Uttej
Source: High Court of Chhattisgarh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.