SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - JAIPUR BEN
CHHAJU RAM – Appellant
Versus
SADHU RAM AND ORS – Respondent
CMA 2070/2000



Advocates:
['S C SRIVASTAVA', '', 'R S AGARWAL', 'RAAJ PAL CHAUDHARY']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2070/2000

Chhaju Ram son of Shrawan aged about 11 years through his

father/ natural guardian Shri Shrawan resident of Surajpol Anaj

Mandi, Jaipur

----Appellant

Versus

1. Sadhu Ram through Shri Pappu Lal Meena resident of Kakrel

Tehsil Amber District Jaipur.

2. Pappu Lal son of Prabhu Dayal meena resident of Kankeral

Tehsil Amber District Jaipur

3. The National Insurance Company Limited through Regional

Manager, 10 Narain Singh lane narainsingh Tiraha, jaipur. Cover

note No.479694 valid upto 22.08.97 to 21.08.98

----Respondents

Connected With

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 632/2001

1. Koyali wife of Hanota Ram aged 25 years,

2. Lad daughter of Hanota Ram aged 10 years,

3. Prakash son of Hanota Ram aged 8 years.

4. Makkhan son of Hanota Ram aged 6 years

5. Manju daughter of Hanota Ram aged 3 years

6. Jagannath son of Chanda Ram aged 55 years.

7. Lachhma wife Jagannath aged 50 years.

Appellants Nos.2 to 5 are minors through their mother/natural

gurdian Smt. Koyali, All resident of Surajpol Anaj Mandi, Jaipur

Thana Galta Gate, jaipur.

----Appellant

Versus

1. Sadhu Ram through Shri Pappu Lal Meena resident of Kakrel

Tehsil Amber District Jaipur.

2. Pappu Lal son of Prabhu Dayal meena resident of Kankeral

Tehsil Amber District Jaipur

3. The National Insurance Company Limited through Regional

Manager, 10 Narain Singh lane, jaipur.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s)

:

None present

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Raajpal Chaudhary, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

08/09/2022

No one appears for the appellants.

(2 of 2)

[CMA-2070/2000]

Requisites of notices for the private-respondents have not

been filed. Hence, these appeals are dismissed for non

prosecution.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

Ashwani /-20-21

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top