The court reviewed a case involving a reconstruction of the record for a review petition. It allowed reconstruction but dismissed the review application regarding the legality of a survey work conducted in the absence of the client.
The review petition was dismissed; the record of Second Appeal No. 510/2009 was reconstructed.
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
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8712/2010 IN
R.A.ST. NO. 20112/2009 IN
SECOND APPEAL NO. 510/2009
_____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders |
Mr. Sanjay Kolhare,Advocate for applicants.
CORAM : [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] PER COURT :
2
of the appeal memo along with annexures.
5 The copies of the appeal memo with annexures are taken on record. The record stands re-constructed.
7 The appellant’s advocate is trying to reassert that the survey work done in the absence of his client before filing of the suit was illegal. This asserted even earlier, all throughout this was the contention of the appellant. The Court below rejected it recording cogent reasons. Review petition stands dismissed.
Dt : 6th July, 2010 [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] tsk/
Applicants
A.V. NIRGUDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
