This appeal was dismissed as incompetent because the appellant failed to appear. The court noted that the appeal arises from a judgment dismissing a suit and refused to proceed against absent respondents as it would result in inconsistent decrees.
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.
Patna High Court SA No.136 of 2012 (6) dt.24-10-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.136 of 2012
| ====================================================== Sahdeo Tatma .... .... Appellant/s Versus Arjun Sharma & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== |
|
|---|---|
| Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. |
|
| ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER |
|
| 6 | 24-10-2016 Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant. Perused the office note, from which it transpires that this |
| appeal has stood dismissed for default as against respondent Nos. 1 | |
| and 3. It further appears from the memo of appeal that respondent | |
| Nos. 1 and 3 were defendants in the suit whereas the present appellant was the plaintiff and the present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of affirmance dismissing the suit. As there is no representation on behalf of the appellant to point out that this appeal can proceed in absence of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 on record, proceeding further with this appeal may result in inconsistent orders or conflicting decrees. |
|
| This appeal is, therefore, dismissed as incompetent. |
(V. Nath, J.)
Snkumar/-
U
Sahdeo Tatma
Arjun Sharma
V. NATH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
