Dismissed
Amit Kumar v. Rajiv Suri
Delhi HCRFA/904/2023
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
RFA appeal dismissed in default as appellant failed to deposit 50% decretal amount despite prior opportunity and no counsel appeared; court clarified no stay on impugned judgment and decree.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
$~12
¶2
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
¶3
- RFA 904/2023, CM APPL. 58306/2023 , CM APPL. 58320/2023 & CM APPL. 58304/2023
¶4
AMIT KUMAR .....Appellant Through: None. versus
¶5
RAJIV SURI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Prateek Chaudhary, Advocate. CORAM:
¶6
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
¶7
O R D E R
¶8
% 10.12.2024
¶9
[ Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
¶10
- As per office report, even 50% of decretal amount has not been deposited by the appellant despite last order (27.08.2024), granting a fresh opportunity to do so within two days. As such, it is made clear that there is no stay on operation of the impugned judgment and decree.
¶11
- Further, since none appears for appellant, the appeal and the pending applications are dismissed in default.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- appellant
Amit Kumar
- respondent
Rajiv Suri
Coram
AI extract
Girish Kathpalia
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court