The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's matter for want of prosecution as no one appeared on their behalf, deeming an adjournment in the interest of justice to be dispensed with given the peremptory order.
Matter dismissed for want of prosecution; record consigned to record room.
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.
PAGE No
CONTD. ORDER-SHEET
CASE No
| DATE | DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER | REMARK |
|---|---|---|
| sA637t2 09t0st23 |
NonefortheApplicant ShriAshishDixit,AdvfortheIlesponcient OnmatterbeingtakenRespondentCounselby invitingattentiononorderdated13104123 praysfordismissalofthismatter. Onperusaloforderdated13104123itreveals thatonlastdatealsonooneappearedon behalfoftheApplicantshoweverinthe interestofjusticematter hadbeenad-lourned withthisobservationthatmattershallbe dismissedifnooneappearecJonbehalfof Applicanttoday. |
|
| Lookingtoperemptoryorderpasscdbythis Tribunalthismatterisbeingdismissed for wantofprosecutionsincenooneappeared todayon behalfoftheApplicant. Recordbeconsignedtothe recordro<lm. (RamNiwasPatel) Prcsidin Olllccr t D.R.T,Jabalpur (M.P&C.G) |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the matter should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance of the applicant.
Applicant
Respondent
Ram Niwas Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
