This order discharges the appellants' counsel and dismisses the appeal for want of prosecution after notice issued for withdrawal of appearance was ignored.
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
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 -
FA 361/00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.361/2000
Murlidhar Daulatram Milani
and another.
...Appellants..
Versus
Sau.Maya Vinod Bhoeer & others.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri S.S. Wagh, Advocate h/f Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate
for appellants.
Smt.Mapari, Advocate h/f Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar,
Advocate for respondent no.3.
Shri L.V. Sangit, Advocate for respondent nos.4 & 5.
Respondent no.6 served.
.....
CORAM: N.W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE: 24.07.2015
ORDER :
1]Learned counsel for the appellants Shri S.T. Shelke
alongwith the Purshis for withdrawal of appearance has
tendered a communication issued to the appellants
intimating about withdrawal of his power.
2]The appellants in response to the said notice have
not taken any steps. The appeal is fixed for final
FA 361/00
hearing.
3]Appearance of learned counsel Shri S.T. Shelke is
discharged.
4]In view of the fact that none appears for the
appellants, the appeal is dismissed for want of
prosecution as none appears for the appellants in spite
of notice issued by the Advocate for the appellants to
the appellants.
ndk/ c24715.doc
Murlidhar Daulatram Milani
Sau. Maya Vinod Bhoeer
N.W. Sambre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court