Full Text
Translation output
u \/ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RFA 111/2007
VISHNU KUMAR GUPTA
Through None.
Appellant
RFA 111/2007
VISHNU KUMAR GUPTA
Through None.
Appellant
VERSUS
VIMLESH
Through Respondent Mr.Pardeep Gupta, Mr.Parinav Gupta and Ms.Mansi Gupta, Advs. jO
Through Respondent Mr.Pardeep Gupta, Mr.Parinav Gupta and Ms.Mansi Gupta, Advs. jO
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
19.09.2017 Nobody appeared onbehalfoftheappellant.
Aggrieved by the
19.09.2017 Nobody appeared onbehalfoftheappellant.
Aggrieved by the
ORDER
and decree dated 26.10.2006, the present appeal was filed along with an application for stay. Notice was issued to the respondent and the matter was taken up for hearing from time to time. In the year 2008, cross-objections were filed on behalf of the respondent. An application for early hearing was also moved which was dismissed on 20.10.2008., Thereafter, the appellant stopped appeared in the matter. On 28.07.2011, nobody appeared for the appellant. Same thing happened on 12.09.2011 and the matter came up for hearing for today. Today also nobody appeared on behalf ofthe appellant.
Apparently, nobody prosecuting the matter on behalf of the appellant particularly after the dismissal ofthe application ofearly
2017:DHC:8915 y V -/ hearing in the year 2008. In the facts and circumstances ofthe case, there are sufficient grounds to presume that the appellant is no more interested in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed in default and the applications C.M.Nos.2813/2007 and 17397/2007 are also disposed ofaccordingly. f| p.sfyj
SEPTEMBER 19,2017 'L / $-18 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RFAl 11/2007 VISHNU KUMAR GUPTA Appellant
Through: None.
VIMLESH
Apparently, nobody prosecuting the matter on behalf of the appellant particularly after the dismissal ofthe application ofearly
2017:DHC:8915 y V -/ hearing in the year 2008. In the facts and circumstances ofthe case, there are sufficient grounds to presume that the appellant is no more interested in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed in default and the applications C.M.Nos.2813/2007 and 17397/2007 are also disposed ofaccordingly. f| p.sfyj
SEPTEMBER 19,2017 'L / $-18 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RFAl 11/2007 VISHNU KUMAR GUPTA Appellant
Through: None.
VIMLESH
versus
Respondent
Through: Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Mr. Parinav Gupta, Ms. Mansi Gupta, Mr.Moazzam All, advocates
Through: Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Mr. Parinav Gupta, Ms. Mansi Gupta, Mr.Moazzam All, advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEH
ORDER o/o 17.10.2017 The case islisted on an office note seeking correction indate of order.
It has been reported that the last order was of20 September but due to typographical error, the date of order was wrongly mentioned as 19^ September 2017. Ithas been clarified that the date th of last order be read as 20^ September 2017, instead of 19 September 2017.
The appeal already stands disposed ofand no further orders are called for in this appeal.
OCTOBER 17,2017 pkb
ORDER o/o 17.10.2017 The case islisted on an office note seeking correction indate of order.
It has been reported that the last order was of20 September but due to typographical error, the date of order was wrongly mentioned as 19^ September 2017. Ithas been clarified that the date th of last order be read as 20^ September 2017, instead of 19 September 2017.
The appeal already stands disposed ofand no further orders are called for in this appeal.
OCTOBER 17,2017 pkb