Dismissed
P T Bhammer v. a C Banker
Bombay HCS/1787/1977
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
Suit dismissed ex-parte Order 9 Rule 3 CPC due to Plaintiff's non-appearance after adjournment for three months.
What did the court decide?
Suit dismissed under Order 9 Rule 3 CPC.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
¶2
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
¶3
SUIT NO. 1787 of 1977
¶4
Pravinkumar Tribhuvandas Bhammer .. Plaintiff
¶5
versus
¶6
Aruna Banker & ors. .. Defendants
¶7
Mr.K.R. Dhanuka for the plaintiff.
¶8
None for the defendants.
¶9
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK,J.
¶10
DATED : 7th July 2005.
¶11
P.C.:
¶12
1. Plaintiff is not present. On the last
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- petitioner
Pravinkumar Tribhuvandas Bhammer
- respondent
Aruna Banker
Coram
AI extract
D.G. KARNIK
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court