The High Court dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution as the appellant failed to appear or provide representation despite multiple adjournments and a final notice.
The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Costs are not awarded. Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
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.
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1838 OF 2013
JUDGMENT :
The contents of the proceeding sheet show that on 13.08.2019, when the matter was listed, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant and it was adjourned by four weeks under the caption “for dismissal”. On 26.08.2019, 03.09.2019, 17.09.2019, and 15.10.2019 when the matter came up for hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. However, to provide one more reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the matter was again directed to be listed on 21.10.2019 under the same caption. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is also no representation on behalf of the appellant. This conduct of the appellant shows that he is not having any interest to prosecute the case.
Under these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________ J. UMA DEVI, J
Date.21.10.2019 Gk
2
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1838 OF 2013
21.10.2019
Gk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal can be dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance of the appellant over several dates.
J. Uma Devi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
