Lal Chand v. Birbal
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed an appeal for non-prosecution as the appellant failed to appear despite repeated requests and the death of a legal representative.
What did the court decide?
The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RSA No. 458 of 2007 Decided on: 02.08.2017
__________________________________________________________ Lal Chand …..Appellant Versus Birbal & others ……Respondents
______________________________________________________________ Coram_
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No
For the appellant : Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1(a) : Mr. Vineet Vashistha, Advocate. to 1(f) _________________________________________________________________ Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge (oral)
Perusal of record goes to show that respondent No. 1, Ved Ram, has expired on 22.09.2007 and his legal representatives, including Leela Devi, who is also respondent No. 2, in the present appeal are brought on record.
- Learned counsel for the appellant states that respondent No. 2/legal representative, Leela Devi, has also expired before 30.08.2016. He further states that despite repeated requests, the present appellant is not turning up for prosecuting the present appeal. Records further reveals that more than a year has elapsed, however no steps till date has been taken by the appellant for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Leela Devi. It seems that the
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be allowed in the absence of the appellant.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Lal Chand
- respondent
Birbal
- respondent
Leela Devi
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Himachal Pradesh HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- RSA/458/2007
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court