Dismissed
M/S. Khushaldas B. Patel v. Manoj Kumar Mishra and Anr.
Bombay HCWP/3079/2006
What the court decided
AI extract
Outcome
Rule discharged. Writ petitions dismissed for want of prosecution and lack of perversity.
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.
wp3079-06.doc
sg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3079 OF 2006
M/s. Khushaldas B. Patel ...Petitioner
vs
Manoj Kumar Mishra And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3144 OF 2006
Ms. Karuna Yadav, i/b. N.M. Ganguli, for the Petitioner in WP/3144/2006 and for Respondent No.1 in WP/3079/2006.
CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.
DATED: APRIL 22, 2016
P.C. :
. None for the Petitioner. On the last occasion, this Court had passed an order on this cross petition inter alia noting that the Petitioner's Advocate had addressed a communication of having withdrawn his appearance. This Court had directed the Advocate of Respondent No.1 to communicate its order and the next date of hearing to the Petitioner. This Court had made it clear that if on the next date none appears for the parties, the matter would be heard ex-parte and final orders would be passed. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the Advocate of Respondent No.1 had sent a communication to the Petitioner addressed both at the place of business as well as at his native place. Whereas the communication addressed at the place of business is refused by the brother of the Petitioner, who
Pg 1 of 2
wp3079-06.doc
carries on the same business at the same place, the communication addressed at the native place has come back with the remark “insufficient address”. In any event, it is for the Petitioner to prosecute his challenge diligently. In spite of his Advocate having withdrawn his appearance, if the Petitioner chooses to remain absent and engage an Advocate, there is a clear default in prosecution. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.3079 of 2006 is dismissed for want of prosecution.
( S.C. GUPTE, J. )
Pg 2 of 2
M/s. Khushaldas B. Patel
Manoj Kumar Mishra
S.C. GUPTE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court