The appeal was dismissed in default as the appellants failed to appear despite service of notice to their son following the death of the appearing counsel.
The appeal is dismissed in default due to non-appearance.
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.526 of 1988
======================================================
JAGDISH SAHU and ANR
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
NAGINA KHATOON ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. J.N.Srivastava For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
22 16-11-2021
It appears that due to death of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, this Court has ordered on 24.8.2011 to issue notice to the appellants expeditiously.
The office note shows that the notice was served to
the son of appellant No. 2. Despite that, none appeared, as such, the appeal is dismissed in default.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J)
SONALI/-
U
Jagdish Sahu
Nagina Khatoon
Nawneet Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
