The petitioner failed to appear despite repeated calls for hearing in the admission matter. The court dismissed the writ application in absentia.
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6066 of 2012 (3) dt.05-11-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6066 of 2012
======================================================
Anil Kumar Shrivastava
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Chitranjan Sahay Verma @ Chitranjan Pd. Verma & Ors.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. R.J.Maharaj
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR
SAHOO
ORAL ORDER
3 05-11-2015 In spite of repeated calls for hearing in admission matter,
nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.
The learned counsel, Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad is present
on behalf of respondent No.2.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)
Saurabh/-
U T
Anil Kumar Shrivastava
Chitranjan Sahay Verma
Mungeshwar Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
