The High Court dismissed the civil first appeal filed by Malkeet Kaur against a decree for loan recovery for non-prosecution as the appellant failed to appear and did not deposit the decretal amount as directed in the stay order.
The civil first appeal is hereby dismissed for non-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
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 103/1995
Malkeet Kaur
----Appellant
Versus
State Bank Of India
| ----Respondent | ||
|---|---|---|
| For Appellant(s) | : None Present |
|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. RS Bhati |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order
07/12/2021
No one is present on behalf of the appellant in first round and even in the second round.
A perusal of record reveals that the respondent-Bank filed a civil suit for recovery of loan amount of Rs.15,910/- which was decreed vide judgment dated 09.03.1995.
On the stay application, vide order dated 04.08.1995 it was directed that if the appellant deposits the decreetal amount within a period of two months, the execution of impugned decree shall remain stayed.
The appellant has not filed any receipt on record regarding deposition of decreetal amount in compliance of the stay order dated 04.08.1995. The decreetal amount is only to the tune of Rs.20300/- along with interest.
It appears with the a passage of time, the appellant has lost interest in pursuing this first appeal.
In view of above, the present civil first appeal is hereby dismissed for non prosecution.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
2-Anshul/-
Malkeet Kaur
State Bank Of India
Sudesh Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
