The single-judge bench dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution due to the absence of counsel and parties despite a revised call, noting the underlying civil suit might be concluded.
Petition dismissed for want of 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.
WPMS No. 318 of 2007 Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
There is a battery of Advocates appearing for the petitioner, but, unfortunately, even in the revised call, none appears to press the writ petition. However, in the absence of the parties, this Court has got no option except to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution.
Perusal of the order dated 12.02.2007, passed by the District Judge, Almora in Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2006, reveals that the learned District Judge has allowed the application under Section 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. by setting aside the order dated 01.08.2006, granting a temporary injunction.
With the passage of time, this Court feels that the suit itself might have been decided.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 31.07.2017
Shiv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance by the petitioner.
Whether the underlying civil suit can be considered concluded or abandoned.
Sharad Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
