The High Court dismissed this defective writ petition where the petitioner failed to appear, caused a deficit court fee, and failed to remove defects despite opportunities, noting the underlying trial was in final stages.
The writ petition is dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.3592 of 2017
Sajani Devi .... Petitioner
-Versus-
Smt. Chhobia Mahatain and others ….... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : -------
When the matter is called out, no one appears for the petitioner.
05/23.10.2018
This writ petition has remained defective for over 15 months and inspite of opportunities granted the petitioner has not removed the defects, one of the defects is deficit court fee of Rs.230/-. Not only today, on 23.08.2017 when this writ petition was listed before the Registrar General no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
The petitioner who is plaintiff in T.P.S No.132 of 2009 is aggrieved of the order by which her application to recall order dated 06.12.2016 by which the plaintiff's evidence was closed has been rejected.
By now, trial in the suit must have reached its final stages, if not finally disposed of.
In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
sudhir
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this writ petition should be entertained despite defects and non-appearance of the petitioner.
Sajani Devi
Smt. Chhobia Mahatain and others
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
