The court dismissed Appeal No.2 of 2025 and rejected an interim application due to the appellant's failure to appear or file representation, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the case.
Appeal No.2 of 2025 dismissed; Interim Application rejected; File 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.
| 06.02.2026 | Exh. | Roznama-MDRT-II Appeal No.2 of 2025 |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| None for the Appellant. | |||
| s.u - 6 | Mr K.D. Shukla, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr Sachin Kaikini, – Advocate for the intervener. Order dated 19.01.2026 shows that no representation was made by the Applicant. Even today, no representation is made by the Appellant either personally or through the Advocate or through VC. It appears that the Appellant is not interested in pursuing this case any further. So, Appeal No.2 of 2025 stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly. Interim Application if any, stands rejected. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Sd/- P.O. DRT-II |
Closed |
Appellant
Respondent No.1
P.O.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
