The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a suit under Order IX Rule 8 CPC because none of the plaintiffs appeared when the matter was called, following a prior notice.
The suit is dismissed and any interim relief stands 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.
27-S-2885-98.SUIT.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 2885 OF 1998
…Plaintiff
Mrs. Kamlesh Kumari Nigam.…Plaintiff
Versus
Rabinder Krishan Nigam and others.…Defendants
None for the Plaintiffs.
Mrs. Shanya Shah, i/b Shah & Shanghvi for the Defendants Nos. 1
and 2.
CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:June 17, 2014
PC:-
1.A notice has been issued on the printed board, as also on the
High Court Website, to the effect that, when a suit listed,
irrespective of the caption under which it appears, if none appears
for the plaintiff/s when the matter is called out, the suit will be
dismissed.
2.The 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 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1 of 2
27-S-2885-98.SUIT.DOC
1908. Interim / ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier in any
interlocutory proceedings in this suit, shall stand vacated forthwith.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a suit should be dismissed when the plaintiff does not appear.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mrs. Kamlesh Kumari Nigam
Rabinder Krishan Nigam
G.S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court