The court dismissed the suit for want of prosecution as the plaintiff failed to appear after service of notice. The court also issued notice regarding the filed counter claim.
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution; Notice issued regarding counter claim.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO. 403 OF 1990
Gahlot Construction Co.
... Plaintiff
Vs.
The Board of Trustees & Ors.
....Defendants
None for Plaintiff
Mr. U.J. Makhija, Senior Counsel i/b. Mulla & Mulls for
Defendants.
CORAM: V.M. KANADE J.
DATED: 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2009
P.C.
1. None appears on behalf of the Plaintiff.
2.After the Plaintiff�s Advocate was expired, notice was
issued to the Plaintiff. Further, in spite of the service
of notice, none appears on behalf of the Plaintiff. It
appears that the Plaintiff is not keen in pursuing the
suit. Suit is, therefore, dismissed for want of
prosecution.
3.The Defendants have filed their counter claim. Counter
Claim is served on the Plaintiff.
4.Issue notice in Counter Claim to the Plaintiff, which
is made returnable on 11th November, 2009
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution as the plaintiff did not appear after issue of notice.
Whether notice should be issued to the plaintiff regarding the counter claim.
V.M. Kanade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court