The Special Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution as the Applicant's side was absent on the date of final hearing, despite prior peremptory directions and lack of interest in prosecuting the matter.
Special Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
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 | DESCRIPTIONOFTHE ORDER | RE]$ARK |
|---|---|---|
| sA287t22 ru0u24 |
NonefortheApplicant ShriAdamya Bajpai,AdvfortheRespondent Matteristakenupfor finalhearing. |
|
| Onperusalolorderdated15112123itreveal thatonlastdateofhearing alsonoonehad appearedonbehalfofApplicanteventhen matter hadbeenadjournedlookingtointerest ofjusticewithperemptorydirectioneven then todayalsoApplicantsideisabsent. |
||
| SinceApplicantshavingnointerestto prosecutethisSAfurthernoneedtodecide this SAfinally. |
||
| Looking toabsenceofApplicantside,thisSA isdismissedforwantofprosecution. |
||
| Recordbeconsignedtothe record room. (Ram Presi t sPatel) din Officer D.R.T,Jabalpur (M.P& C.c) |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Special Appeal should be dismissed due to the absence of the Applicant and lack of prosecution.
Applicant
Respondent
Ram
Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
