First Appeal where absence of both parties led to dismissal of the appeal as time barred after failure to prosecute an application for condonation of delay.
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 First Appeal No.96 of 2006
| ================= Kamal Kishore Pandey Sunil Kumar Pandey ================= |
===================================== & Ors .... .... Appellants Versus .... .... Respondent ===================================== |
|---|---|
| Appearance : | |
| For the Appellant/s | : Mr. Pramod Kumar Rai Mr. G.Arun |
| For the Respondent/s |
: Mr. |
| ================ CORAM: HONOURA SRIVASTAVA |
===================================== BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR |
| ORAL ORDER |
24 26-07-2018
No one appears either on behalf of appellants or on behalf of respondent on repeated call. The record goes to show that none is appearing on behalf of the parties since long. Furthermore, I.A. No. 4560 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of the appellants under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 112 days in filing this civil appeal.
Since no one is appearing on behalf of the appellants to press the I.A. No. 4560 of 2008, the aforesaid I.A. No. 4560 of 2008 stands dismissed for non-prosecution and in result, this appeal, too, dismissed being time barred.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)
SHAHZAD/-
U
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kamal Kishore Pandey
Sunil Kumar Pandey Ors
Hemant Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
