Writ petition was dismissed in default due to the absence of the petitioner and counsel despite the court issuing a public notice inviting them to plead their case. No substantive dispute was adjudicated.
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.
I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAI PUR BENCH, JAI PUR
O R D E R
S. B. Ci vi l Wr i t Pet i t i on No. 3402/ 2007 Mukesh vs. The Addl. District Judge (F.T. No.4) Bharatpur & Anr.
Date of Order : 10th September, 2014
HON' BLE MR. JUSTI CE R. S. CHAUHAN
None pr esent f or t he pet i t i oner .
Despi t e i ssuance of publ i c not i ce by t hi s Cour t i nvi t i ng l i t i gant s t o come and pl ead t hei r case i n absence of t hei r counsel , nei t her t he pet i t i oner , nor hi s counsel has appear ed bef or e t hi s Cour t . Ther ef or e, t hi s wr i t pet i t i on i s, her eby, di smi ssed i n def aul t .
( R. S. CHAUHAN) , J.
Mak/-
30
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”
Anil Makawana
P.A.
Mukesh
The Addl. District Judge (F.T. No.4) Bharatpur & Anr.
R. S. Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
