The C.M.A. was dismissed for non-prosecution as the appellant failed to appear on the fixed hearing dates without representation, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.
C.M.A. 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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA
C.M.A.No. 304 OF 2004
JUDGMENT:
A perusal of the record shows that the C.M.A. was dismissed for default twice, firstly on 20.3.2006 and secondly on 9.4.2009. On petitions being filed by the appellant, the default order was set aside both the times. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed a petition to fix an early date for hearing the appeal and the same was ordered directing the Registry to post the appeal under the caption “For Final Hearing”. On 10.11.2009, when the matter was called, none appeared for the appellant and the matter was adjourned. Even today, when the mater is called, none appears for the appellant and no representation. It appears the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal any further.
2) Therefore, the C.M.A. is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs.
B.N. RAO NALLA, J
4th September, 2012 CHV
B.N. RAO NALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
