The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the first appeal for want of prosecution. Notices to appellants were issued but not received; subsequent service failed due to lack of address. Appellants did not appear, leading to dismissal for disinterest.
Appeal 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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 22 / 1992
Mal Chand
----Appellant
Versus
Hari Ram
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Dudia
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Judgment
27/04/2018
On 03.08.2017, this Court had ordered to issue notices to the appellants No.1/1 to 1/5 in wake of the fact that Mr. I.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants has pleaded no instructions.
The notices upon appellants No.1/2 to 1/5 have been duly served while notices of appellants No.1/1 and 1/6 have not been served.
On 23.11.2017, this Court had directed to issue notices to unserved appellants No.1/1 and 1/6, however the same have been received unserved for want of fresh address as the noticees are living in Hisar.
A perusal of the order-sheets dated 23.11.2017 and 26.02.2018 reveals that due to inadvertence the order had been inscribed while mentioning “respondents No.1/1 and 1/6” in place of “appellants No.1/1 and 1/6”. However the Office has sent the
(2 of 2)
[CFA-22/1992]
notices to appellants No.1/1 and 1/6 in the spirit of the order passed by this Court.
The inadvertent error in the order dated 23.11.2017 and
26.02.2018 has been corrected by me today.
Despite service, neither appellants No.1/2 to 1/5 nor any counsel on their behalf has appeared. Notices sent to appellants No.1/1 and 1/6 have been received unserved for want of fresh address.
It is therefore clear that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the present appeal.
The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of prosecution.
(DINESH MEHTA), J.
Anurag/12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to failure of appellants to appear and serve notices.
Mal Chand
Hari Ram
DINESH MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
