Special Appeal dismissed for lack of prosecution as the Applicant failed to make representation for over a year, indicating no interest in pursuing the case.
Special Appeal No. 132 of 2022 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.
| 23.05.2025 | Exh. | Roznama-MDRT-II S.A. No.132 of 2022 |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| None for the Applicant. |
|||
| rst - 13 | Mr Krishna Jaiwar i/b Mr R.L. Motwani, Advocate for Respondent. Order-sheet of the learned Registrar dated 19.02.2025 shows that since 20.03.2024 no representation was made by the Applicant. Even today, no representation is made by the Applicant either personally or through the Advocate or through VC. It appears that the Applicant is not interested in pursuing this case any further. So, S.A. No.132 of 2022 stands dismissed for want of prosecution. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Sd/- P.O. DRT-II |
Closed |
Applicant
Respondent
P.O.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
