Pokhraj Mahto & Ors. v. Shankar Mahto & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- V NATH
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. This appeal has been filed against the decree of dismissal of the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs-appellants. However, this appeal stood dismissed for default against respondent nos. 4, 13, 19 and 24. In this view of the matter, proceeding further with this…
Judgment
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Lalan Pd. Singh Mr. Mahendra Pd.Sinha Mr. M.P.Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. M.N.Roy Mr. N,K ,Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 16 25-10-2013 No one again appears on behalf of the appellants. Yesterday also when the matter had been called out, no body appeared on behalf of the appellants although the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 22 was present. Perused the office note. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents.
This appeal has been filed against the decree of dismissal of the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs-appellants. However, this appeal stood dismissed for default against respondent nos. 4, 13, 19 and 24. In this view of the matter, proceeding further with this appeal may result in inconsistent orders and decrees. Consequently, this appeal is held to have become incompetent and is dismissed as such. B.Roy/- (V. Nath, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.