The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution due to the absence of the appellant and non-payment of process fee, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the matter.
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.
CM No.24000-CII-2008 and FAO No.4448 of 2008
Present: None for the applicant/appellant.
On the last date of hearing, no one had put in appearance although notice was issued in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
As per the office report, learned counsel for the appellant has
not filed the process fee.
Even today, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the applicant/appellant. It appears that learned counsel for the applicant/appellant is not interested in pursuing the present appeal.
Dismissed for want of prosecution.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MAY 26, 2009 JUDGE vivek
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
