Disposed
Bir Singh v. Renu Mann
Delhi HCRFA/483/2018
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
The appeal, filed by Bir Singh who was present in person, was disposed of as not pressed. The court noted that while counsel sought an adjournment, the appellant's presence and lack of pursuit precluded such action. No substantive legal question was addressed.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
$~5
¶2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
¶3
- RFA 483/2018 & CM No. 24486/2018(stay)
¶4
BIR SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Shalender Dahiya, Advocate (9312275287) Appellant in person. versus RENU MANN ..... Respondent Through: Respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA O R D E R % 09.10.2018
¶5
- Appellant Mr. Bir Singh is present in person. He states that he does not want to pursue the appeal. Counsel for the appellant Mr. Bir Singh however states that the appeal be adjourned. I fail to understand when the appellant is present in person, and is recognised by his existing counsel, how can I adjourn the appeal if the appeal is not pressed on behalf of the appellant Mr. Bir Singh who is present in person.
¶6
- In view of the aforesaid facts, this appeal is disposed of as not pressed.
¶7
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
¶8
OCTOBER 09, 2018 ib
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- appellant
Bir Singh
- respondent
Renu Mann
Coram
AI extract
Valmiки J. Mehta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court