Petitioners did not appear despite repeated calls; court dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution after hearing counsel for respondent No.6.
Writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18469 of 2010
======================================================
Versus
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER
However, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6 submits that in the factual matrix of the present case, the impugned appellate order dated 24.08.2010 (Annexure-6) passed in Appeal No. 176 of 2009 by the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Muzaffarpur cannot be legally faulted. It is further pointed out that with respect to the property in
Patna High Court CWJC No.18469 of 2010 (3) dt.17-04-2015
2/2
question, civil suit is pending at the behest of the writ petitioners themselves.
Be that as it may, since none is appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the writ petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
BTiwary/-
U
Dr. Ishwarchand Sidh
Jagdish Chand Sidh
Mahesh Chand Sidh
Vinayak Chand Sidh
The State of Bihar through Commissioner, Tirhut Division
Commissioner, Tirhut Division
Birendra Prasad Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
