A miscellaneous appeal was disposed of by holding that it shall abate due to prior dismissal against respondents 15(iv) to 15(vi) for non-compliance of a peremptory order.
The appeal is abated.
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.472 of 1992
======================================================
RAM SAKAL MAHTO & ORS
... ... Appellant/s
Versus BALISTER DHOBI & ORS ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Chakravarti Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
14 07-01-2019 The appeal has already been dismissed against respondent No. 15 (iv) to 15(vi) on 04.03.2005 due to non compliance of peremptory order. The judgement is against the appellants for removal of encroachment.
In this view of the fact, the whole appeal shall abate.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
BKS/-
U
RAM SAKAL MAHTO & ORS
BALISTER DHOBI & ORS
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
