Dismissed¶16

C L Sharma v. G S Sharma

Delhi HC10 Mar 2025RFA/30/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, Jyoti Singh J., 10.03.2025 — RFA 30/2019, C.L. Sharma v. G.S. Sharma; regular first appeal dismissed for non-prosecution and in default; appellant absent on multiple dates (25.04.2024, 18.10.2024), failed to update changed address despite court notice; underlying decree: Trial Court judgment/decree dated 10.09.2018 in Suit No. 612469/2016; pending application CM APPL. 1740/2019 disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The Appellant has not diligently prosecuted the appeal and has been negligent in not intimating any change of address, if any, to update the record. ¶16

C L Sharma Vs G S Sharma — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RFA 30/2019 and CM APPL. 1740/2019 C L SHARMA .....Appellant

¶4

Through: None. versus

¶5

G S SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. R.K. Bedi, Advocate.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 10.03.2025

¶9

This appeal is preferred on behalf of the Appellant challenging the impugned judgment/decree dated 10.09.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court in Suit No. 612469/2016 , titled ‘ Sh. C.L. Sharma v. Sh. G.S. Sharma ’.

¶10

Order sheets indicate that on 18.10.2024, there was no appearance on behalf of the Appellant and the same position prevailed on 25.04.2024. In the interest of justice, Court notice was issued to the Appellant on 18.10.2024 returnable for today making it clear that in the event Appellant was unrepresented on the next day, it may be assumed that he is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

¶11

There is no appearance on behalf of the Appellant even today. With respect to the Court notice, the office report indicates that Appellant no longer resides at the address given in the memo of parties. However, counsel for the Respondent submits that Appellant has not diligently prosecuted the appeal and even assuming there was a change in address, it was his

¶12

RFA 30/2019 Page

¶13

1 of 2

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:16:06

¶15

obligation to intimate the correct address by filing an appropriate application and/or intimating his counsel so as to update the record. It is thus urged that the appeal be dismissed.

¶16

Order sheets indicate that Appellant has not diligently prosecuted the appeal and as rightly submitted by counsel for the Respondent, he has been negligent in not intimating the change of address, if any. I am of the view that Appellant is no longer interested in prosecuting the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution and in default.

¶17

Pending application stands disposed of.

¶18

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶19

MARCH 10, 2025 S.Sharma

¶20

RFA 30/2019 Page 2 of 2

¶21

C L Sharma v. G S Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C L Sharma v. G S Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Shiv Shakti Foods Vs Union of India & Ors.

Regent Mall Association Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (through Its Commissioner) & Ors.

Vikas Bhushan Gupta Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Krishna Devi Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sh. Ramesh Kumar Bajaj Vs Deputy Commissioner M.C.D (South Zone) Shahdara & Ors.

Mohinder Singh Vs MCD