Jasraj Mandre vs Ramcharan Tilante
2023 Latest Caselaw 22097 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jasraj Mandre vs Ramcharan Tilante on 21 December, 2023

Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

                                                               1
                             IN      THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                               ON THE 21 st OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                                SECOND APPEAL No. 175 of 2019

                            BETWEEN:-
                            JASRAJ MANDRE S/O NATTHU MANDRE, AGED ABOUT
                            45 YEARS, NEAR NAMDEO MANDIR TIKARI TAHSIL
                            AND DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....APPELLANT
                            (NONE)

                            AND
                            RAMCHARAN TILANTE S/O AMARCHAND TILANTE,
                            AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED NEAR
                            NAGDEO MANDIR TIKARI TAHSIL AND DISTT. BETUL
                            (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENT


                                  This appeal coming on for admission, this day, th e court passed the
                            following:
                                                                ORDER

None for the appellant even in the second/passover round at 2:23 p.m.

2. Perusal of record shows that this second appeal has been preferred by defendant/tenant challenging the judgment & decree dtd.11.12.2018 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Betul affirming the judgment & decree dtd.30.11.2016 passed by trial Court holding the appellant/defendant to be tenant in the suit accommodation and holding the plaintiff to be in bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises.

3. As none is appearing to press this second appeal, therefore, it appears that

the appellant has lost his interest in prosecuting this second appeal.

4. Resultantly, this second appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only).

5. It is made clear that, if any application for restoration is filed, the deposition of cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the State Legal Services Authority, Jabalpur shall be a condition precedent to entertain the application for restoration, if any.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE KPS