Dismissed
S.L.Sharma v. Ruby Suri
Delhi HCRFA/22/2008
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
Delhi HC dismissed an appeal for want of prosecution, noting the appellant's repeated non-appearance over seven consecutive dates, thereby wasting judicial time and prejudicing other litigants.
What did the court decide?
The instant appeal, along with the pending application(s), is dismissed.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
$~R-1
¶2
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
¶3
- RFA 22/2008 S.L.SHARMA .....Appellant Through: None. versus RUBY SURI .....Respondent Through: None.
¶4
CORAM:
¶5
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
¶6
O R D E R % 03.12.2024
¶7
- None has appeared for the appellant despite the matter being called out on various dates i.e.., 31.07.2023, 22.10.2024, 05.11.2024, 11.11.2024, 18.11.2024 and 25.11.2024.
¶8
- The daily cause list published on the website of this Court clearly reflects a note for advocates and litigants that regular matters mentioned in the cause list shall be taken up after the supplementary and advance list is over. The physical display Board of this Court as well as the virtual display Board also clearly reflects that regular matters are being called and taken up for hearing.
¶9
- Despite aforesaid, it is disheartening to see that for the matters listed in the regular list, neither the advocates nor the litigants are appearing before this Court.
¶10
This is a digitally signed order.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- appellant
S.L. Sharma
- respondent
Ruby Suri
Coram
AI extract
Pusheindra Kumar Kaurav
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court