The Second Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution as the appellant failed to appear despite receiving notices and without active counsel.
Second Appeal No. 2929 of 1979 is dismissed for want of prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 53
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 2929 of 1979
Appellant :- City Board And Another Respondent :- Dr.Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Appellant :- V.D. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ajeet Kumar
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
None appeared for the appellants.
Though vide order dated 25.9.2019 notices were issued to the appellants to engage another counsel by registered post A.D. as well as courier under order V, Rule 9 (3) C.P.C.
As per the office report dated 13.1.2020 N.E.C. issued to the appellants no. 1 and 2 through registered post, has been delivered to them on 21.10.2019. Since service has been completed and yet nobody is present for the appellants, it appears that appellants are not interested in pursuing the matter despite receiving of N.E.C.
In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
As far as in regard to compliance of this Court's order dated 8.1.2020 by courier is concerned, this compliance is inadequate and this case too will form subject matter of enquiry along with Second Appeal No.1396 of 1979. Order for enquiry against courier company and the concerned official of the registry shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Order Date :- 13.1.2020 Meenu
City Board
Dr.Dharmendra Pratap Singh
Vivek Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
