The High Court dismissed the first appeal filed by Tulsi Ram for want of prosecution, noting that service was deemed sufficient as the notice for engaging counsel was never returned despite multiple attempts over several years.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
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. - 59
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 79 of 1996
Appellant :- Tulsi Ram And Another Respondent :- Kalim Ahmad Counsel for Appellant :- No Counsel for Respondent :- P.C. Srivastava,Swapnil Kumar
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
As per office report dated 03.10.2017, notice issued to the appellants to engage another counsel by registered post fixing 20.11.2017. Office has further reported on 18.07.2018 / 22.07.2022 that neither undelivered cover nor any acknowledgement has returned back after service upon appellants.
In view of above, service upon appellants is deemed to be sufficient.
List has been revised. No one is present on behalf of appellants to press this appeal.
The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 7.9.2022 sailesh
Digitally signed by SAILESH PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.09.07 17:46:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Tulsi Ram And Another
Kalim Ahmad
Vipin Chandra Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
