Second appeal against a decree for eviction. The court noted that the respondents had already obtained possession during the pendency of the appeal and that the appellants had not been in contact. The appeal was dismissed as the appellants had lost interest.
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 BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 108/2017
----Appellants-Defendants
Versus
----Respondents-Plaintiffs
For Appellant(s) : Mr. J. K. Moolchandani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta with Mr. Ravi Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
06/07/2022
Instant appeal arises against the decree for eviction dated 07.03.2001 passed in civil suit No.18/1999, which has been affirmed in the first appeal No.103/2016 vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2016.
(2 of 2)
[CSA-108/2017]
In the appeal, no interim stay was passed in favour of appellants and therefore, respondents-landlord pursued the execution of the decree for eviction and has taken possession of the rented shop on 10.02.2017.
Learned counsel for appellants submits that appellants have not contacted to him despite sending information. It appears that since the decree has already been executed, appellants have lost interest in pursuing the second appeal.
In view of above, the second appeal is dismissed.
Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
TN/2
Sushil Kumar
Kamal Kant
Sanjeev Kumar
Smt. Premwati
Bhagchand Jain
Nemi Chand Jain
SUDESH BANSAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
