Shankerlal v. Haraklal and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The first appeal was dismissed by this court for want of prosecution as the learned counsel for the appellant filed no instructions despite reminders.
The first appeal was dismissed by this court for want of prosecution as the learned counsel for the appellant filed no instructions despite reminders.
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.
[2023:RJ-JD:39690]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 159/2005
Shankerlal Lal S/o Dalchand Lakhara, aged 63 years, resident of Potla, Tehsil Sahada, District Bhilwara.
----Appellant
Versus
1/1. Kailashchandra S/o Harak Lal Ji Aagal, resident of Potla, Tehsil Sahada, District Bhilwara. At present Vikas Machinary, Gangapur, District Bhilwara.
1/2. Rameshchandra S/o Harak Lal Ji Aagal, resident of Kabir Colony, Behind Petrol Pump, Chittorgarh.
1/3. Rajesh Kumar S/o Harak Lal Ji Aagal,
1/4. Rakesh Kumar S/o Harak Lal Ji Agal,
All residents of – Mahila Aashram Road, Kachcharmal Godha Ki Dukan Ke Samne, Bhilwara. 1/5. Smt. Chandrakanta D/o Harak Lal Ji Agal, W/o Harish Ji Maheshwari, resident of – 36-A, Vivek Society, 4th Floor, Room No. 15-16, Koslane Champagali, Mumbai.
1/6. Smt. Pushpa Devi D/o Harak Lal Ji Aagal, W/o Radheshyam Ji Chechani, resident of – Vardhman Colony, Bhilwara.
1/7. Smt. Nisha D/o Harak Lal Ji Aagal, W/o OM Prakash JI Soni, resident of - 4th Floor, City Telephone Exchange Building, Hajarimal Somani Marg, Gymkhana Fort, Mumbai.
----Respondents
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. SandeepSaruparia |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari |
(2 of 2)
[2023:RJ-JD:39690]
[CFA-159/2005]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Judgment
20/11/2023
Mr. Sandeep Saruparia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that despite sending letters and reminders, the appellant has not contacted him. He therefore, pleads no instructions on behalf of the appellant.
In view of the above, the present first appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
49-Dinesh/-
Shankerlal Lal
Harak Lal
Madan Gopal Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court