Writ petition was dismissed and dismissed for want of prosecution as the petitioner and counsel were absent and the proceedings had been pending since April 7, 2013 without pursuit by the applicant.
Writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution.
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 FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9412/2013
Pappulal Vs.Regional Manager Bank of Baroda Date of Order :: 16/2/2015
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
None present.
<><><>
On 21st January, 2015, the matter was adjourned on the request made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner.
Today, neither the petitioner nor the counsel for the petitioner is present to prosecute the writ proceedings, which has been pending since it's institution on 7th April, 2013.
The writ petition is dismissed and for want of prosecution.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA), J.
A.Sharma/85
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed:
(Anil Sharma) Jr.P.A.
Pappulal
Regional Manager Bank of Baroda
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
