The Bombay High Court dismissed Suit No. 3220 of 1994 for default under Order IX Rule 3 of the CPC as no representative appeared for the plaintiffs despite statutory notice.
Suit dismissed for default under Order IX Rule 3 of the CPC.
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-S-3220-94.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 3220 OF 1994
…Plaintiffs
B. S. Tirth and others.…Plaintiffs
Versus
Daudiya Prission and others.…Defendants
None for the Plaintiffs.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: FEBRUARY 25, 2014
PC:-
1.The 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 a suit listed under
the caption for directions is called out, if none appears for the
plaintiff/s, 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 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908.
1 of 2
4-S-3220-94.DOC
3.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 the suit be dismissed for non-appearance of the plaintiff.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B. S. Tirth and others
Daudiya Prission and others
G.S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court