The High Court of Delhi dismissed an appeal for non-prosecution. The appellant failed to appear before the court despite notification, and the clerk had attempted service which returned unsent. Pending applications were also disposed of.
Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution; pending applications 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.
$~13
RAJNISH NAINAKWAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeet Singh, Advocate. (M:9811767675)
versus
DHANPATI SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M. S. Yadav, Advocate. (M:9810420361)
CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
O R D E R
% 06.03.2018
RFA 110/2016
Page 1 of 2
sell the suit property to the Plaintiff for a total sum of Rs.18,00,000/- out of which Rs.16,50,000/- has already been paid by her. The Trial Court records that the Appellant's stand is that possession of the property has been taken by the Respondent’s partner Shri D. N. Sood. However, the Trial Court thereafter finds that there is no evidence of such possession having been taken over by Mr. D. N. Sood. Under these circumstances, the decree for specific performance has been passed.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
MARCH 06, 2018/ dk
Page 2 of 2
RFA 110/2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution in the absence of the appellant.
Rajnish Nainakwal
Dhanpati Singh
Prathiba M. Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
