A Regular Second Appeal was dismissed in default. The appellant failed to appear, provide instructions for service of notice, and deposit the decretal amount despite multiple listings.
The 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.
$~7
HARIA @ HARISH CHAND YADAV ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sudhir Kumar and Mr. Jai Bansal, Advocates
versus
BHIM SINGH ..... Respondent Through: None
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
page 1 of 2
RSA 278/2017
notice thereof was ordered to be issued. Thereafter, the appeal has been listed repeatedly on 12th January, 2018, 23rd January, 2018, 9th March, 2018, 24th May, 2018 and 25th May, 2018 for service of notice but the appellant/ judgment debtor has not been taking requisite steps.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
AUGUST 21, 2018 SR.
RSA 278/2017 page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Regular Second Appeal stands dismissed for default due to failure to provide service of notice and non-deposit of decretal amount.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Haria @ Harish Chand Yadav
Bhim Singh
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
