Second appeal dismissed for want of prosecution as the appellants' counsel was not ready to argue for want of instructions and no adjournment was granted.
None; 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.
Mamta Kale
3-sa-615-1994.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 615 OF 1994
Shri. Tukaram Sopan Lole & Ors. ..Appellants Vs. Shri Vishal Vishnu Paigude & Anr. ..Respondents
Ms. Neeta Patil i/b. Mr. S. R. Nargolkar, for the Appellants. None for the Respondents.
CORAM : R. N. LADDHA, J. DATE : 14 FEBRUARY 2024
P.C.
MAMTAAMARKALE Digitallysigned byMAMTAAMARKALEDate:2024.02.1417:42:24+0530
. Perused the orders dated 25 January 2018, 12 July 2022, 25 July 2022, 5 September 2022 and 7 February 2024. Today, the learned counsel for the appellants is not ready to argue the matter for want of instructions.
R. N. LADDHA, J.
page 1 of 1
Tukaram Sopan Lole & Ors.
Vishal Vishnu Paigude & Anr.
R. N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
