During hearing of a Civil Revision Petition where petitioners failed to appear, the court held the petition infructuous and dismissed it for default as petitioners showed no interest in prosecuting it.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for default; miscellaneous petitions also stand dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
Civil Revision Petition No.3862 of 2014
ORDER:
As there was no representation for the revision petitioners on 27.06.2016, the revision was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘For Dismissal’.
When the revision is taken up for hearing today, there is no representation for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the suit has been already decreed by the trial Court and that the findings of the trial Court in the judgment finds support from a decision of the Supreme Court in Faseela M. v. Munnerul Islam Madrasa
Committee
[2014 (4) ALD 81 SC ] and that, therefore, this revision petition has become infructuous.
However, since there is no representation for the revision petitioners despite listing the matter today under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, it indicates that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the revision petition.
Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in the CRP shall also stand dismissed.
_____________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J
01.07.2016 Vjl
M. Seetharama Murti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
