Plaintiff failed to provide instructions for hearing; suit dismissed for want of prosecution.
Dismissal of Summary Suit No.1126 of 1998.
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 O. O. C. J.
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1126 OF 1998
Mahalaxmi Enterprises. ...Plaintiff. Vs. Glolite Electricals & Anr. ...Defendants.
Mr.Santosh Sharma i/b. Gabriel Pillai for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
.
P.C.
On 16th July 2009, the hearing of the Summary Suit was adjourned by two weeks, on the request of the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff, in order to enable him to take instructions. The Learned Advocate states that no instructions are forthcoming and it appears that the sole proprietor of the Plaintiff has shifted from the address noted in the Plaint. In these circumstances, the suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
