The application was dismissed for want of prosecution as no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press the matter before the court on the hearing date or the previous date when it was called for.
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
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.105 of 1992
======================================================
Amar Nath Gupta
.... .... Petitioner.
Versus
Ram Niwas Surekha & Ors
.... .... Opposite Parties.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : None.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
------------
8 03-02-2015 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this
application when the case is called out.
Yesterday (02.02.2015) also, none had appeared on
behalf of the petitioner to press this application when the case was
called out.
As a result, this application is dismissed for want of
prosecution.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)
P.S./-
U
Amar Nath Gupta
Ram Niwas Surekha & Ors
Rajendra Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
