The Bombay High Court dismissed a suit titled Suit No.4079 of 1996 under Order IX Rule 3 CPC after the plaintiff failed to appear when the matter was called for directions.
Suit dismissed under Order IX Rule 3 CPC; earlier interim relief, if any, vacated forthwith.
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.
3S4079-1996.DOC
Vishal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.4079 OF 1996
Mr.Shyam B. Luthria
Versus
…Plaintiff
Mr.Udharam B. Luthria & Ors..Defendants
None for the Plaintiff.
None for the Defendants.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: MARCH 06, 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.
1 of 2
3S4079-1996.DOC
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff should be dismissed in the absence of appearance by the plaintiff when listed for directions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G.S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court