Harvans v. Chandra Pal
Case brief
What is this about?
This court dismissed the second appeal by Harvans against Chandra Pal for want of prosecution. No one appeared to press the appeal after service of notices, which were deemed sufficient under the Rules.
What did the court decide?
This second appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance of the appellant.
What the court decided
Court No. - 34
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 1944 of 1986
Appellant :- Harvans Respondent :- Chandra Pal Counsel for Appellant :- Counsel for Respondent :- Radhey Shyam
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
- Vide order dated 29.10.2015, notice was issued to appellant to engage another counsel, which was sent by registered post on 04.11.2015. Perused Office report dated 18.12.2018 which shows that notices have not been received back after service as yet. Service is deemed sufficient under the Rules.
- Called in revise. None appeared to press this appeal.
- Dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 Manish Himwan
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to lack of appearance and non-return of served notices.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Harvans
- respondent
Chandra Pal
Coram
Sudhir Agarwal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- SAPL/1944/1986
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court