Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Raghuveer (D) Th.Lrs. Smt. Saroj vs Shivdayal on 30 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 30 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 3265 of 2006
BETWEEN:-
1. DR. RAGHUVEER (D) TH.LRS. SMT.
SAROJRAGHUVEER PD., AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETD. UP SANCHALAK PASHU
CHIKITSA SER. CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DINESH KUMARRAGHUVEER PD. SHRIVASTAV,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DR. SURESH KUMAR S/O RAGHUVEER PD.
SHRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. SEEMAPREM PRAKASH KHARE, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, RAJNADGAON
(CHHATTISGARH)
5. NARESH KUMAR S/O RAGHUVEER PD.
SHRIVASTAV, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, DELHI
6. DR. SUREKHA S/O RAGHUVEER PD. SHRIVASTAV,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. RAKESH S/O RAGHUVEER PD. SHRIVASTAVA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, MUMBAI MERIN
8. SMT. RAJKUMARIJAGESHWAR DAYAL
SHRIVASTAV, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETD. DISTT. & SESSION JUDGE
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. SMT. SHEELASHIV PD. SHRIVASTAV, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, MULTAI, BETUL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. DR. BASANT KUMAR S/O SHIV PRASAD
SHRIVASTAV, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, BETUL
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
MAURYA
Signing time: 5/31/2024
1:07:59 PM
2
(MADHYA PRADESH)
11. AKHLESH SHIRVASTAV S/O SHIV PRASAD
SHRIVASTAV, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. SMT. JYOTIANUPAM SHIRVASTAV, AGED ABOUT
48 YEARS, SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
13. LAXMAN KUMAR S/O LATE BHAWANI PD.
SHRIVASTAV, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, MULTAI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
14. DILIP S/O RADHIKA PD. BHAWANI, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, BHAWANI CHHAYA NEAR HANUMAN
MANDIR, BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
15. SMT. ASHAPRADEEP, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
BHAWANI CHHAYA NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR,
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(NONE)
AND
1. SHIVDAYAL S/O HARVANSH SHRIVASTAVA, AGED
ABOUT 67 YEARS, RAILWAY SURAKCHHA BAL
BHEEMBAI BINA DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. HARIRAM S/O MALTHU SAHU, AGED ABOUT 25
Y E A R S , LAKHRONI, PATHARIA, DAMOH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MOHAN S/O MALTHU SAHU, AGED ABOUT 21
Y E A R S , LAKHRONI, PATHARIA, DAMOH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. SUMAT RANIPURSHOTTAM RATHORE,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, LAKHRONI, PATHARIA,
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PURSHOTTAM S/O ARJUN RATHORE, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, LAKHRONI, PATHARIA,
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O BADRI PRASAD
SHRIVASTAV, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PUSHPA
COLONY, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
MAURYA
Signing time: 5/31/2024
1:07:59 PM
3
7. MAHENDRA KUMAR S/O BADRI PRASAD
SHRIVASTAV, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BARODIA,
KHURAI, SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. SATISH KUMAR S/O BADRI PD. SHRIVASTAV,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, IN THE HOUSE OF
MOHAN LAL SAHU PUSHPA NAGAR,
COLONY,BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. THE STATE OF M.P. DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(DR. ANUVAD SHRIVASTAVA- ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT [R-1].
)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Present appeal is preferred by appellants assailing the order passed in
Regular Civil Appeal No.27-A/2005 by First Additional Judge to the Court of
First Additional District Judge, Damoh on 12.7.2006 whereby the judgment and
decree passed by Vth Civil Judge, Class- II Damoh in C.OS. No. 20-A of 2004
on 30.9.2004 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court for
deciding afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties in respect of
amendment allowed by the first appellate court.
2. No one is present today on behalf of appellants and on 13.5.2019 also
no one appeared however, the matter was adjourned. Thereafter it was listed on
3.5.2014 and no one was present on behalf of the appellant. This court after
recording the absence of the appellants ordered to post the matter under the
caption "for dismissal" on 3.5.2024. Today also no one is present on behalf of
the appellant. The appeal was preferred in the year 2006 against the order of
remand and there is possibility that the case has been decided by the trial Court
after remand.
3. It appears that appellants lost interest in prosecution this appeal,
consequently, present appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Akm
