Dismissed
Neeraj Bhatia & Anr. v. M/S D Pauls Capital Ltd. & Ors.
Delhi HCRFA/348/2019
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
$~10
..... Appellants
Through : None
versus
M/S D PAULS CAPITAL LTD & ORS
..... Respondents Through : Mr.Rakesh Tikku, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Hem Singh, Adv. for R-1 Mr.Rakesh Agarwal, Adv. for R-2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
O R D E R % 06.01.2020
None appears for the appellant despite second call. Even on the last date of hearing viz. 11.10.2019, an adjournment slip was moved on behalf of the appellant. It is pertinent to note the sale deed qua the subject property has already been executed on 15.03.2019 in favour of respondent No.1.
It is to be noted the respondent No.3 died during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs were impleaded before the learned trial court. However, in the appeal yet again the respondent No.3 has been made a party without impleading his legal heirs and even despite this fact being brought to the notice of the counsel for the appellant on 20.05.2019, no appropriate steps have been taken to amend the memo of parties.
Even otherwise, it is argued by the learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 the appeal has not been filed by a duly authorised counsel and has referred to a Power of Attorney annexed with the Vakalatnama dated 08.04.2019 of the appellant herein. The said Power of Attorney annexed was probably given in CS(OS) No. 2156/2003 titled as Mrs. Shalini Bhatia V. Dr.Pramod Kumar Sood pending at such time in this Court in respect of the subject property. The said suit has since been dismissed on 19.11.2019. Learned senior counsel also urges an action be taken under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Since none has appeared I do not intend to give my view on this at this stage.
As it appears the appellant seems to have lost interest in this litigation. The appeal is thus dismissed in default and for want of prosecution. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
The executing court may proceed as per law.
Order dasti .
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
JANUARY 06, 2020 VLD
Neeraj Bhatia & Anr
M/S D Pauls Capital Ltd
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.3
Yogesh Khanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court