Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Original Petition No. 5‑R of 1986, decided on 1st March, 1986.
‑‑‑O.XXVII‑‑Contempt‑‑Petitioner failing to deposit amount which was imperative before petition could be entertained by office‑‑Neither amount deposited nor petitioner appearing on date fixed for considering petition on merits‑‑Dispute raised in proceedings not appropriate justiciable issue to be resolved by Court‑‑Petition disposed as not entertain-able.
Nemo for Petitioner.
Respondent No.l in person.
Nemo for the remaining Respondents.
Date of hearing: 1st March, 1986.
‑‑There was an office objection that the petitioner had not deposited Rs.500 which was imperative before the petition could be entertained by the office. This matter and also the matter on merits was fixed in Court for orders. Neither the petitioner is present nor has the amount been deposited. Moreover, we do not consider the dispute raised in these proceedings to be an appropriate issue to be resolved by this Court.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of as not being entertainable.
M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer