The writ petitioner did not appear. Since the date of sale was in 2016, the court found nothing remained for adjudication and dismissed the application in default.
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 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17219 of 2016
======================================================
... ... Petitioner
Versus
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr.Satya Prakash Tripathy, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER
2 08-08-2019 No one appears for the petitioners.
It appears that the writ application was filed in the
year 2016 seeking quashing of the proclamation of sale dated 21.01.2015 and dated 22.07.2016 as contained in Annexure ‘1’ and ‘3’ respectively to the writ application. Nothing has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.17219 of 2016(2) dt.08-08-2019 2/2
brought on record to show the subsequent development. The date of sale is that of the year 2016, therefore, now nothing survives in the writ application for adjudication.
None appearance for the petitioners further indicates
that the petitioners have lost interest in this case.
Learned counsel for the Bank is present.
The writ application is, thus, dismissed in default.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
vats/ved
U
M/s Maa Durga Wood Processor at Sabalpur and others
The State Bank of India and others
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
