The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna, in a one-judge bench oral order, directed the appellant's counsel to convert the Second Appeal into a Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) CPC due to an office objection kept at Flag-X.
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.495 of 2016
======================================================
Ramagya Yadav
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Bharat Prasad and Ors ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Akhileshwar Kumar Shrivastva For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER
In view of the office objection kept at Flag-X, learned counsel for the appellant is directed to convert this appeal into Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of the C.P.C.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
Pankaj/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal needs to be converted into Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramagya Yadav
Bharat Prasad
Sudhir Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
