The High Court of Bombay dismissed a suit for want of prosecution after neither plaintiffs nor defendant appeared on the day fixed for examination to frame issues, ordering costs against plaintiffs.
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution; order as to costs.
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.
: 1 :
| IN | THE HIGH COURT OF |
JUDICATURE A |
T B |
OMBAY |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| O.O.C.J. | ||||
| SUIT NO.1177 |
OF | 1990 | ||
| 1. Limited |
M/s.Shree Sanand |
Textile | I | ndustries |
| 2. M/s.New India Ass | urance Co. Ltd. | .. Plaintiffs. | ||
| Versus | ||||
| M/s.Naranji Peraj Tra | nsport Company | .. Defendant. | ||
| None | present. | |||
| CORAM DATE |
: V.C.DA : 13th Dece |
GA, mber, |
J. 2007. |
|
| P.C.: | ||||
| 1. | None for the parties. On the last date | of | ||
| hearing, the |
plaintiffs were directed |
to remain |
present | in |
| person for being exam so as to enable this Co 2. |
ined under Order 14 Rule 4 of C.P.C. urt to frame issues in the suit. Today, neither the plaintiffs nor the defend |
ant is | ||
| present. In |
this view of the |
matter, the |
suit | is |
| dismissed for want of the C.P.C. No order a |
prosecution under Order 9 Rule 10 of s to costs. |
(V.C. DAGA, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a suit can be decided in default when plaintiffs fail to appear after being directed to remain present for examination.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Shree Sanand Textile Industries
M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
M/s. Naranji Peraj Transport Company
V.C. Daga
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
