The Special Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution as the applicant failed to appear in person or through an advocate or VC, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the case.
No order as to costs.
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.
| 25.07.2025 | Esh. | Roznama-MDRT-II S.A. No.293 of 2024 |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| None for the Applicant. Ms Nidhi Bhavsar i/b M/s. Orizon Legal, Advocate for Respondent No.1. None for other Respondents. |
|||
| rst - 47 | No representation is made by the Applicant either personally or through the Advocate or through VC. Prima facie, it appears that the Applicant is not interested in pursuing this case any further. So, S.A. No.293 of 2024 stands dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Sd/- P.O. DRT-II |
Closed |
Applicant
Respondent No.1
P.O.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
