Single judge dismissed a testamentary suit for want of prosecution due to the absence of the plaintiff and his advocate, noting the death of the defendant.
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 TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO. 10 OF 2007 IN PETITION NO. 420 OF 2006
Zuran Anton Suoz alia Jerome Antony D’souza. ... Deceased.
Mathew Stephen D’mello. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Smt. Rozy K. D’Mello & Anr. ... Defendants/Caveators.
None for the Plaintiff. Mr. R.R. Arolkar for the Defendant.
CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.
DATED : 2nd DECEMBER 2009.
P.C. :-
The Plaintiff and his Advocate was absent on 25th November 2009. Even the Advocate for the Plaintiff has since expired. In these circumstances, the Suit is dismissed for want of prosecution. More particularly, because Defendant No.2 has also expired.
(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)
Zuran Anton Suoz alia Jerome Antony D'souza
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
