CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Bajrang Urf Munna vs Mahadeo Prasad

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 10 August 2006 · Citation: (2006) 08 AHC CK 0118

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.P. Mehrotra, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Second Appeal No. 552 of 1983
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 236 words

S.P. Mehrotra, J.—On account of failure on the part of the learned Counsel for the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-appellant in taking requisite steps for issuance of notices on the Appeal, the Stay Application as well as the Substitution Application, namely, Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 1759 of 1992 (dated 7.4.1992), the case is listed today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.

2.

The case has been taken-up in the revised list. However, the learned Counsel for the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-appellant is not present.

3.

Even though the case is listed today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court, requisite steps have not been taken by the learned Counsel for the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-appellant.

4.

In the circumstances, there is no option but to dismiss the Second Appeal for want of prosecution under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.

5.

The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.

6.

The Stay Application, namely Civil Misc. Stay Application No. ..of 1983 (dated 28.2.1983) as well as the Substitution Application, namely, Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 1759 of 1992 (dated 7.4.1992) are also dismissed for want of prosecution under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.