This order dismisses a second appeal as incompetent because it stood dismissed for default against respondent number 4(1), likely to avoid inconsistent decrees.
The appeal was dismissed as incompetent.
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 Second Appeal No.330 of 1992
14 02-07-2015 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been placed today for considering the competency after its dismissal as against respondent no. 4 (1).
It transpires from the records that the plaintiffrespondent no. 4 Krishna Prasad Nagbanshi died during the pendency of this appeal and on the prayer of the appellant the respondent no. 4 (1) Gopal Singh Nagbanshi was substituted in his
Patna High Court SA No.330 of 1992 (14) dt.02-07-2015
2
place by order dated 07.08.1995. It further transpires that this appeal stood dismissed for default as against respondent no. 4 (1) for non-compliance of the order dated 20.05.2009.
The learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the fact that the respondent no. 4 was also one of the plaintiffs in the court below along with the other plaintiffs and this fact is also apparent from the appellate decree under appeal. After dismissal of the appeal as against respondent no. 4 (1) in this regard, proceeding further with this appeal may result in inconsistent orders and decrees.
As such, this appeal is dismissed as incompetent.
(V. Nath, J)
Devendra/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal can be proceeded with after being dismissed for default against substituted respondent no.4(1).
Hidayatullah
Gopal Singh Nagbanshi
V. Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
