Revision petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution as no representation appeared on behalf of the petitioners on the hearing date despite the caption being 'for dismissal'. Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
C.R.P.No.1990 OF 2016 AND
C.R.P.No.2192 OF 2016
COMMON ORDER:
Earlier when the matters were listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. On 20.06.2017, learned counsel for the petitioners appeared and argued the matters in part. But today, when the matters are called there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners though the matters are listed under the caption “for dismissal”. It indicates that the petitioners have no interest in prosecuting the revisions. Therefore, the revision petitions are dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions in these petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
__________________________________ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J 22.06.2017 kvrm
M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
