Judgment · High Court
Judgment
1 . '^.^L,.,
3. Tbe Sfeate ef abattisgarfa,' ^thEougfa ^CeIXeeSeE', ·KoE.la,· BaiiEatifc]^>ar» Mstt.; Kerla, e. G» . (BE(i&ININGDE?ENBflKTS) miT PETSI©NSKDER aKT33£aEiE 227 ®FTHE ^iaSPyX'OSIQS W 1SBI&.
Partlcttlars ef thepetlte.loiaer! As taeBfciGB^a above*
Part.iculars e£ tbe sespondeBfess As laeiatloned above* eoatd*.2 HC—78 'S's? '<II<<ICT<<, s.'til+i'is, fsjdl'y^ *«i*ini ^iqieh-"-'"- ^^.^U^.U3.?^................ •>•'-'•'•7••••••••-^ 200 CT^?T'^R?(13^f3p^T) 3ii^?ffft; ihf WtSIt^IiPTO; TCiWRfltesn^i
ISB: J4QN. SHRI N.K. AGARWAU. J. 16,01.2013 None for the petitioners. Shri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. for tl1e State. None appears for the petitjoners nbr any representation is made on their behalf even in secorfd round. Therefore, no option is left b|ut to dismiss this appeal for want ofprosecution. Accordingly, this petjtion is d ^missed for want of prosecution. \. . \ffv^~ Sd/- N.K.AgrawaI Judge
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.