The High Court at Patna dismissed the second partition suit appeal as abated in its entirety. The Court held that the appeal abated because the subject matter arose from a judgment and decree passed in a partition suit.
The appeal was dismissed as abated as a whole.
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.58 of 1994
| ==================== Paras Tiwary |
================================== .... .... Appellant/s Versus |
|---|---|
| Nityanand Tiwary & Ors ==================== Appearance : |
.... .... Respondent/s ================================== |
| For the Appellant/s : | Mr. Prem Kumar Tripathi Mr. Satya Nand Shukla Mr. Arvind Kumar Mr. V.K.Sinha-1 Mr. Pandit Jee Pandey |
| For the Respondent/s : |
Mr. |
| =================== CORAM: HONOURABL ORAL ORDER |
================================== E MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR |
11 03-10-2017 Due to non-compliance of the order dated 10.04.2017 the appeal stood dismissed as against respondent Nos.18, 21(i) and 21(ii). Now the file has been placed for necessary order as to whether the appeal will be abated as a whole or only against the aforesaid respondents.
Since the matter arises out of judgment and decree passed in a partition suit, the appeal stands abated as a whole and accordingly it is dismissed as abated.
(Birendra Kumar, J)
Mkr./-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the partition suit appeal abated as a whole due to non-compliance with the order dated 10.04.2017.
Paras Tiwary
Nityanand Tiwary & Ors
Birendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
