The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution. Noting that service notice was returned unserved for Petitioner No.2 due to incorrect address and no petitioner appeared, the court held it was the duty of petitioners to furnish correct details.
Petition dismissed for non-prosecution without costs.
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.
1
wp-1763.06
ash
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1763 OF 2006
Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders.
None for the Petitioners. Shri V.P. Malvankar, AGP 'A' Panel for the State.
CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ DATED : 29TH APRIL 2014
P.C.:
. None appears for the Petitioners. The Court service notice has been issued to the Petitioners. The office remark shows that the Court service notice is duly served to the Petitioner Nos.1 and 3. As far as Petitioner No.2 is concerned, the notice is returned unserved with the remark that “the address mentioned in the cause title is not correct”. It is the duty of the Petitioners to furnish correct address. As none appears for the Petitioners, we dismiss the Petition for non-prosecution. The rule is discharged with no orders as to costs.
(A.A. SAYED, J)
(A.S.OKA, J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to lack of appearance and non-service of notice on Petitioner No.2.
Petitioners
State
A.S. Oka
A.A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court