Second appeal dismissed for non-prosecution as no party appeared despite valid service of notice; liberty granted to pursue restoration under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC.
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.599 of 1988
======================================================
RAMCHANDRA PANDEY and ORS.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
SHEO BILAS PANDEY.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : None For the Respondent/s : None ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER
12 04-12-2023
No one appears either on behalf of the appellants or
on behalf of the respondents.
Patna High Court SA No.599 of 1988(12) dt.04-12-2023 2/2
therefore, this second appeal has been dismissed due to non prosecution under Order 41 Rule 17(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure with liberty that whenever the appellants or their heirs or their legal representatives shall be interested to pursue this appeal, they shall take recourse under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Divyansh/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal should be continued when no one appears and notices to appellants remain unserved or unanswered.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramchandra Pandey and Ors.
Sheo Bilas Pandey
Anshuman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
