The High Court dismissed the appeal in default as the appellants were absent and had failed to appear despite prior notice and warning orders.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
911 FIRST APPEAL NO.2184 OF 2017
KAWERA VASANTA VHADGIR AND OTHERS VERSUS
PILLI NAGA MUNENDRA RAO YEDURONDALU AND OTHERS
Advocate for Appellants : Mr. A. D. Hande, V.P.Savant (Absent). Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. S. S. Rathi. Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3: Mr. A. S. Usmanpurkar Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. S. N. Pagare Respondent No.1 Served.
CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. DATE : 26-09-2019.
PER COURT :
order was passed that, if submissions are not made on the next date, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Yet, it appears that, learned advocates for the appellants are absent.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE
vjg/-.
Kawera Vasant VHagdair and Others
Pilli Naga Munendra Rao Yedurondal and Others
Vibha Kankanwadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
