Held that upon the appellant's counsel withdrawing without a substitute appearing and no other representation being made, the appeal must be dismissed for want of prosecution and disposed of accordingly.
The withdrawal of power by the advocate was allowed, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, and the MP.C.P. No. 672/05 stood disposed of.
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.
It :;t
j<i iRII
IN THE.HON'BLE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT ATBILASPUR
%1:
ApDeUant
y^Defendairt No. 1
F.A.NO.m' OF20Q5
^fi
^Smt. Usha Devi, agpd abpiit 45 years, wife of Shs Gorelal, resident of Chilchli, Ncar Kutnwa, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
VERSUS
J
Anand Ram« aged about 60(65) years, son bfiShri Ram Sukh, caste-Gbnd, resident of - Ncar the road of Paneka, Kaurinbhatha, Rajnandgaon Tahsil and distrief Rajnandgaori (Chliattisgarh)
Respondents
^/Plaintiffs
Neetesh Tandekar, aged about 19 (24),yeaTS,sonofShriK.jL. Tandekar, resident of Civil Line, Rajnandgaon (Ghhattisgarh)
/.
Defendant No.2
Suresh Shanna, son of Stui RamjUal Shanna, resident oj- Near Durga Chowk, Rajnandgaori(C.g.) !"
-WRST APPEAL UNDER SEGSCfQMia^g REAB^^TI'H ORDER 41 RULEA OF CODE OF CIVIL l^CEDURE i9(MMi;t,KED .^ KSk 65,000/- (SIXTY FIVE THOUS^fflQ ©NEYliACieORDINiSEY CQURf FEEOFRS. 7,6007- tSE^^ ;TH0aSANDSDt|HNNDRE:to^NltYii ONLY INVIEWOFTHEIMIWQWEDBECREE,
:!ia
w'SSSs'£ JiSIBSllBII
•^^^'^^^
W^ 2005
ywi "tiitiino, y-til'H^ld, Rril«y'<
l 1101 ^TT^^.£±......^..
^'
an^sTiRcF ('j^fgds)
|3ii^
?raT|?r3>rR-fi<b
3irt?T**<i|g^BT«R^f|a3II^?T|•biofcxlliti)nV^"fa'<l'(Rl*5;l'(
^aif^H3ii^?r|
|---|---|---|---|
|||S.B. Hon'bleShriJustice N
04.2.2010|K.Aaarwal|
|^||Shri Shashi Bhushan,
Heard on application foi
Shri Shashi Bhushan,
submits that the appellant ha
on 08.09.2008, therefore he
behalfofappellant.
On due consideration,
counsel forappellant is permi
ofappellant.
Since none is present
behalf of appellant, this cou(
appeal forwant ofprosecutio^
/s
a
(|<dvocate forappellant.
withdrawal ofpower.
[kdvocate, appeared in the case and
fe taken back the file from his office
(rays forwlthdrawal of his power on
|the applicatiop is allowed and the
(ted towithdrawhis power on behalf
jnor any representation is made on
t has no option but to dismiss the|
|hu.L|Sahu|Accordingly,
the
ap|
prosecution. M(C)P No. 672/||eal
is
dismissed
for want
15 alsostands disposed of.
of
~~-<.
Sd/-
'""--;
N.K-Agrawal y~
Judge/|
j Wm^SKm^
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil appeal lies for non-prosecution and withdrawal of vakalatnama.
What to do when appellant's advocate withdraws and none remains to prosecute the appeal for want of litigation.
Smt. Usha Devi
Anand Ram
Neetesh Tandekar
Suresh Shanna
N. K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
