An oral order dismissing a civil application for lack of narrated urgency regarding a second appeal.
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.
CA 9426-2017
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9426 OF 2017 IN
SECOND APPEAL NO. 357 OF 2009
Deomaharaj Guru Vasudeo Maharaj (DIED) Through legal representative Shriram
...APPLICANT
VERSUS
Pandurang Jagannath Kale and others
...RESPONDENTS
Shri S.M. Kulkarni, Advocate, for applicant. Shri A.D. Kasliwal, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3
CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J. DATE : 28th July, 2017
ORAL ORDER
The applicant/respondent in Second Appeal is unable to
narrate the urgency in the matter.
As such, the Civil Application stands rejected.
( N.W. SAMBRE, J.)
pjm
Shriram
Pandurang Jagannath Kale
N.W. SAMBRE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
