Suit listed for directions at Bombay High Court. Plaintiff absent from hearing despite public notice. Court dismissed suit under Order IX Rule 3 CPC and vacated interim relief.
Suit dismissed; interlocutory relief, if any, stood 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-S33-1997.DOC
Vishal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.33 OF 1997
Smt. Suyoga Atul Shewale...Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Pushpa Anand Shewale & Ors....Defendants
None for the Plaintiffs
Mr. R.J.Mane, AGP for Defendant Nos.6 to 14.
CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:APRIL 01, 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 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. Interim / ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier in any
interlocutory proceedings in this suit, shall stand vacated forthwith.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit should be dismissed in the absence of the plaintiff appearing at the directions hearing issued via public notice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Suyoga Atul Shewale
Smt. Pushpa Anand Shewale & Ors.
G. S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court