The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed an undertrial appeal (mat.app.) for the appellant's default due to non-appearance despite numerous opportunities.
The undertrial appeal was dismissed in default.
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.
$~15
SARLA @ SARITA ..... Appellant Through: None.
versus
PARMENDER KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
O R D E R % 10.05.2018
There is no appearance on behalf of the appellant on the second call. There was no appearance on behalf of the appellant at the first call either.
A perusal of the ordersheets reveals that there has been no appearance on behalf of the appellant for the last few dates of hearing, nor has the appellant filed the fresh address for the service of respondent, despite numerous opportunities.
The appellant does not seem to be keen to prosecute the present appeal. The same is dismissed in default.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
MAY 10, 2018 bg
Sarla @ Sarita
Parmender Kumar
Siddharth Mridul
Deepa Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act 1984 against a decree or order of a Family Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
