The High Court at Bombay dismissed Summary Suit No. 169 of 1988 and Summary Suit No. 186 of 1988 for non-prosecution when the plaintiff failed to appear during the stage of recording evidence.
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
ss-169n186.88
Ash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO. 169 OF 1988 AND
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 186 OF 1988
SS No.169 of 1988
Usmanbhai Adam Lokhandwala. .. Plaintiff Vs M/s. Unique Enterprises & Ors. .. Defendants
Ms Venny Desai i/by Shri A.M.Sangi for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants.
-- AND SS NO. 186 OF 1988
Usmanbhai Adam Lokhandwala. .. Plaintiff Vs M/s. Unique Enterprises & Ors. .. Defendants
Ms Venny Desai i/by Shri A.M.Sangi for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 6TH JANUARY, 2011
P.C:
. The learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff states that the papers have been already returned to the Plaintiff and the Advocate on
record is no longer appearing for the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff is not present. Hence, the suit is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(A.S.OKA, J)
A.S. OKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court