Writ petitions filed by Byapti Mukherjee were dismissed for default. The court noted that petitioners failed to appear for hearing on the scheduled date while respondents counsel was present, indicating loss of interest in prosecuting the matters.
Petitions dismissed for default due to non-appearance of petitioners.
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 (Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) W.P.(C) No.1818 of 2018
------
Byapti Mukherjee & Anr. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus .... .... .... Sabita Mukherjee & Ors. Respondents With
W.P.(C) No.5884 of 2018
------
Byapti Mukherjee & Anr. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus .... .... .... Sabita Mukherjee & Ors. Respondents
------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----For the Petitioners : None For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Adv. Mr. Tarun Kumar Mahato, Adv.
------
Order No.14 Dated- 05.12.2023
It appears that vide order dated 21.06.2023, on request of learned counsel for the petitioners, hearing was adjourned, thereafter, on 23.08.2023, petitioners did not turn up for hearing. On call at present, no one appears on behalf of the petitioners in both matters, however, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears that the petitioners have lost their interest in prosecuting the matters. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed for default.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu/
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Byapti Mukherjee & Anr.
Sabita Mukherjee & Ors.
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
