A civil revision petition was dismissed as it could not proceed due to the absence of counsel on behalf of the petitioner. The court noted multiple attempts to notify the petitioner after his original counsel's death, but no fresh Vakalatnama was filed.
Civil revision application dismissed for non-prosecution due to absence of counsel on record.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.273 of 2008
======================================================
Krishna Kumar Dubey, son of Lallan Dubey, resident of Village- & P.O.Majhwalia, P.S.- Darauli, District- Siwan.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER
10 19-03-2013 The counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Dwivedi had deceased during the pendency of the proceedings and as there is no other advocate on record, notice was issued to the sole petitioner under the orders of this Court dated 6.4.2010. Despite reminders in absence of appearance on behalf of the sole petitioner, this Court by order dated 27.9.2012 required the notice to be served on the petitioner through his counsel appearing in Title Suit No.172 of 2003 and as there was a delay in receiving the report from the Registrar, Civil Court, Siwan an explanation to that effect was also called for by the same order and which has since been received.
I have perused the explanation given by the Registrar, Civil Court , Siwan in his memo dated 22.2.2013 which has been forwarded by the District Judge, Siwan vide his letter dated
Patna High Court C.R. No.273 of 2008 (10) dt.19-03-2013
2
23.2.2013. The explanation for the delay is accepted.
It is further intimated by the Registrar, Civil Court, Siwan that upon receipt of the order of this Court due information was given to the three counsel who were Advocates on record on behalf of the defendant-petitioner in Title Suit No.172 of 2003, regarding the death of the counsel in C.R. No.273 of 2008 and for taking appropriate steps in this regard. Copies of the notice served on the counsel, namely, Shri Shrikant Singh, Sri Gopal Jee Pandey and Sri Om Prakash Singh are placed at flags ‘A3 to A5’ and are enclosed with the explanation. The service of notice upon the counsel was made on 21.2.2013, i.e. almost a month ago and yet when the matter is posted today the office reports that no fresh Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh Chandra, learned counsel who is attached to the office of late R.S. Dwivedi, Advocate makes similar submission regarding the absence of instruction in this regard.
In view of the aforementioned circumstances this civil revision application in absence of counsel cannot proceed and is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Jyoti Saran, J)
SKPathak/-
Krishna Kumar Dubey
Babban Dubey
Smt. Panna Devi
Ramji Sharma
Jyoti Saran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
