The High Court dismissed a writ petition for non-prosecution as the petitioner failed to provide instructions following a statement that the first respondent had taken possession of the suit premises.
Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
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.
mst
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3682 OF 1994
Smt.Jamanabai Kurmayya Mamdyal Petitioner versus Allabaksh Hasansaheb Maniyar and another Respondents Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Amol Mhatre i/by P.K.Dhakephalkar for petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 21st April 2010 PC :- 1. When the petition is called out for final hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per the instructions received by him from the advocate appearing for the petitioner in the Trial Court, it appears that possession of the suit premises has been taken over by the first respondentlandlord. He states that thereafter he has not received any instructions from the petitioner to prosecute the petition. In view of this statement, the petition is dismissed for non prosecution. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
(A.S.OKA, J.)
Smt. Jamanabai Kurmayya Mamdyal
Allabaksh Hasansaheb Maniyar
A.S.Oka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
