In this appeal under Section 96 CPC, the appellant was absent on the date of hearing and on previous dates. Court notices issued to the appellant were unserved. The appeal is dismissed in default for non-prosecution.
Discussed nullified the appeal by dismissal in default due to the appellant's non-appearance.
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.
$~39
RAJESH KUMAR MANGAL .....Appellant
Through: None.
versus
RAJESHWAR PRASAD GAUTAM & ORS. .....Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
prayers:-
(iii) To award costs in favour of the appellant”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/02/2026 at 12:40:35
disposed of.
AMIT SHARMA, J
FEBRUARY 25, 2026/nk/ah
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/02/2026 at 12:40:35
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RAJESH KUMAR MANGAL
RAJESHWAR PRASAD GAUTAM
AMIT SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
