The single judge dismissed the first appeal for want of prosecution after rejecting a condonation of delay application. Absence of the appellant and lack of steps to effect service led to the rejection of the condonation application, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 142 of 2014 Appellant :- Smt. Chhathiya Devi And 2 Ors. Respondent :- Union Of India Thru' G.M. Poorva Madhya Railway Counsel for Appellant :- Durgesh Kumar Sinha
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Ref:- Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 38331 of 2014
List is being revised. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellants to press this application.
In view of the office report dated 5th July, 2018, the appellants have not taken steps for service of notice upon the respondents. It appears that the appellants are no more interested in pursuing the application and the appeal.
The delay condonation application is rejected for want of prosecution.
In view of rejection of the delay condonation application, the appeal also sands dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.7.2018
Atmesh
Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 142 of 2014 Appellant :- Smt. Chhathiya Devi And 2 Ors. Respondent :- Union Of India Thru' G.M. Poorva Madhya Railway Counsel for Appellant :- Durgesh Kumar Sinha
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Dismissed.
For order, see order of date passed on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 38331 of 2014.
Order Date :- 6.7.2018
Atmesh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay condonation application can be allowed in absence of the appellant?
Smt. Chhathiya Devi And 2 Ors.
Union Of India Thru' G.M. Poorva Madhya Railway
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
