Suit dismissed for want of prosecution. Plaintiffs' earlier advocate expired; new counsel failed to file vakalatnama despite order against adjournment.
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 AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO. 2107 OF 1984
M/s. Kapurchand & Co.
... Plaintiffs.
V/s.
Sri Tirumala Enterprises & Anr.
... Defendants.
None for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants.
CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.
02ND FEBRUARY 2009.
P.C. :
. This Suit is filed by the Plaintiffs in the year
| 2. | It had | appeared b | efore me on 20th November 2008 and | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | adjourned | it | for | three weeks. Thereafter, |
it | was |
placed |
| on | Dece | mber |
11, 200 |
8 and I was informed |
that | the | earlier |
| Adv | ocate | for | the | Plaintiffs has expired. |
Thereafter, | one | |
| Adv | ocate | S.S. | Ph | adke, appeared and stated |
that | he | has |
| instr | uctions | to | file | his Vakalatnama. He |
again | sought | |
| adjo | urnment | to | take | instructions and th |
e | matter | was |
adjourned. It was clarified that the Court will not
thereafter adjourn the matter.
| 3. | On 12th | January 2009, non | e appeared | on behalf of | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| the | Plaintiffs. | Today | also | the | Plaintiffs’ | earlier |
| Advocate’s | name |
has been |
shown | on Board |
but | he has |
:2:
| expired. | The | Ad | vocate | there | after | engaged | by | the | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiffs | has | not | filed | his | Vakalatna | ma. | Even | the | Court | |
| Notice | could | not | be | served | on |
the | Plaintiffs | as | it | appears |
that the Plaintiffs firm was not carrying on business from
the address mentioned in the cause title.
Court earlier, this Suit cannot be kept pending. It is,
therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution.
(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the death of the plaintiffs' earlier advocate and failure of the new counsel to file vakalatnama despite orders against further adjour
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
