In Suit No. 44 of 1999, the plaintiffs' advocate took a discharge. No other advocate appeared. The court dismissed the suit under Order IX Rule 3 CPC and vacated any interim relief.
Suit dismissed under Order IX Rule 3 CPC; Interim/Ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier, shall stand 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.
14-S-44-99.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 44 OF 1999
Shantisons.
Versus
CHP Containerlines GMBH & others.
…Plaintiffs
…Defendants
Nonefor the Plaintiffs.
None for the Defendants.
CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:June 11, 2014
PC:-
1.The Advocates for the plaintiffs have taken a discharge. The
plaintiffs have not engaged any other Advocates. None appears for
the plaintiffs, although the appearance of the advocate is shown and
the name of the plaintiffs is called out.
2.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 under Order IX Rule 3 where the plaintiff's advocate took a discharge and no other advocate appeared.
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