The suit was listed for directions. Notice was issued for appearances from 10th February 2014. The plaintiff failed to appear. The single judge dismissed the suit under Order IX Rule 3 CPC and vacated any interim reliefs.
The suit was dismissed and any interim or ad-interim reliefs were vacated.
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.
(4)SUIT-2873-95.doc
Tilak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO.2873 of 1995
Saifuddin Nomanbhai Vahanavati....Plaintiff
Versus
Mr.Laher Maganlal Dedhia….Defendant
____________
None present.
CORAM: G. S. PATEL, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 20, 2014.
P.C.:
1The suit is listed for directions today. A notice has been
issued on the printed board, as also on the High Court Website, to
the effect that from 10th February 2014, when suits listed under the
caption of directions are called out, if none appears for the
plaintiff/s, the suit will be dismissed.
2The names of the plaintiffs and their Advocates are
correctly shown. None appears when the matter is called out. The
suit is dismissed under Order IX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
3All interim or ad-interim reliefs, if any, to stand vacated
forthwith.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
1 of 1
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit should be dismissed for the non-appearance of the plaintiff after notice.
Whether interim reliefs, if any, required to be vacated following dismissal.
Whether the suit stands dismissed under Order IX Rule 3 CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Saifuddin Nomanbhai Vahanavati
Mr. Laher Maganlal Dedhia
G. S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court