S.B.I. v. Kamala
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court dismissed the pending writ petition for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's recalcitrance and consistent failure to appear or join via video conference across multiple hearing dates.
What did the court decide?
Interim order dated 4.3.1999 vacated; writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution.
What the court decided
CVREV No.72 of 1999
- 04.02.2021
- In the wake of the pandemic Covid-19, the
- case is taken up through V.C.
Since on earlier occasions, i.e. on 12.01.2021 and 27.01.2021 no one had joined on behalf of the petitioner, this Court directed to list this matter today under the caption “Dismissal for Non-Prosecution”, so that the petitioner or their counsel can take proper notice of the same. But, today also, when this matter is called through V.C., no one joins on behalf of the petitioner.
From the aforesaid, this Court feels that the petitioner is recalcitrant litigant and not interested to pursue the present litigation.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
Interim order dated 4.3.1999 passed by this Court in this case stands vacated.
This order be communicated to the Court concerned forthwith.
…..….. …..……...… S. Pujahari, J.
Coram
S. Pujahari
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court