Dismissed
Nasru Patro v. Pata Bisoi
Orissa HCCMAPL/42/2003
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
Application for restoration of Second Appeal No. 69 of 1986 dismissed as petitioner failed to remove defects concerning substituted legal representatives and repeated default.
What did the court decide?
Application for restoration of Second Appeal No. 69 of 1986 dismissed.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
CMAPL NO. 42 OF 2003
¶2
02. 20.11.2017 This is an application for restoration of Second Appeal No. 69 of 1986
which had been finally dismissed for repeated default by order dated 13.3.2003. Moreover, in
this appeal all the legal representatives of appellant no. 2 had not been substituted. The sui
t is one for permanent injunction. The petitioner has not yet removed the defects as per S.R.
dated 9.3.2004.
¶3
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to remove the defects.
Taking a cumulative view of the matter in hand, the submission of learned coun
sel for the petitioner is repelled.
¶4
The application stands dismissed.
¶5
D. Dash, J.
¶6
Narayan
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
AI extract
Whether the application for restoration of Second Appeal No. 69 of 1986 allowed given repeated default and pending defects.
Coram
AI extract
D. Dash
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court