Judgment · High Court · 2011
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 9 r. 5
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Notices of respondent nos.1 to 4 have been returned unserved with the bailiff’s remark “Not residing at given address”. Appellant is therefore directed to furnish a fresh address of respondent nos.1 to 4 within a week. On such addresses is furnished, issue fresh notices…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE FIRST APPEAL NO.1965 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.Mandar Soman i/b T.D. Deshmukh for the appellant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 14th January 2011 P.C. :
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Notings in the farad show that the appellant has not taken steps for service on respondent no.5 as directed by this court vide order dated 15 December
2008. Appeal against respondent no.5 therefore stands dismissed for non compliance of this order dated 15 December 2008.
Notices of respondent nos.1 to 4 have been returned unserved with the bailiff’s remark “Not residing at given address”. Appellant is therefore directed to furnish a fresh address of respondent nos.1 to 4 within a week. On such addresses is furnished, issue fresh notices to respondent nos.1 to 4 subject to payment of process. If addresses of respondent nos.1 to 4 is not furnished within a week, appeal shall stand dismissed against respondent nos.1 to 4 for non compliance of this order and under Order 9 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(D.G. KARNIK, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 9 r. 5.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 14 Jan 2011. The bench was D G KARNIK.
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.