In the absence of representation by appellants despite notice, the Additional Judge dismissed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC for want of prosecution. The High Court upheld this dismissal for lack 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.
'w yw-w‘ .
7;
‘Ig Dix/QM THE HIGH COURT or mICATURE AT JABALPUR.MP. K L, Second AEEeal Noa7% (97.M M MM
?
APPELLANTS DEFFENDANTS N0. 1 to 3
I -VersusRESPONDENTS. s 1. The State of M.p. through Collector , Sargu ja,Ambikapur (Plaintiff)
Competent Authority and Sub Divisional Officer, Surajpur Distt— sarguja. MP. (DFD No. 4)
SECOND APPEAL UIS. 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Second Appeal No. 795 of 1997
APPELLANT 1 Patlaso
Defendants No.1 to 3
2 Rooprat
UJ Shyamsundar
Versus
‘a
RESPONDENTS The State of M.P‘ Now (The State of CG.)
2 Competent Authority and Sub Divisional Officer, Surajpur
ISecondAgpealunderSection100oftheCodeofgivilProcedure!
Present:-
None for the appellants
Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, PanelLawyerforthe State/respondent.
(SB:Hon'bleMr.T.P.Shz'rma,J.)
JUDGMENT
(Passedon03/07/2013)
Sdl‘ ' T. P. Sharma Judge
Chandra
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Patlaso
Rooprat
Shyamsundar
The State of M.P (The State of CG.)
Competent Authority and Sub Divisional Officer, Surajpur
T. P. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
