The Patna High Court dismissed the second appeal for incompetence on the ground that the appeal stood dismissed against necessary respondents Nos. 2 and 4 in default.
The appeal has been held incompetent and dismissed as such.
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.213 of 1996 (12) dt.06-12-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.213 of 1996
====================================================== Ramautar Pasi & Anr .... .... Appellant/s Versus Rajendra Pasi @ Rajo Pasi &Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Satyendra Kumar Sinha Mr. Indu Shekhar Dwivedi For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gopal Tiwari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER
12 06-12-2016 Heard learned Counsel for the appellants. Perused the office note, where it has been pointed out that this appeal has stood dismissed as against respondent Nos. 2 and 4 in default.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that respondent Nos. 2 and 4 were necessary parties to the suit. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances this appeal has become incompetent and is dismissed as such.
(V. Nath, J.)
Snkumar/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal is maintainable when respondent Nos. 2 and 4 were necessary parties.
Ramautar Pasi
Rajendra Pasi
V. Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
