Baldev Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others
Case brief
What is this about?
This decision dismisses a writ petition for non-prosecution as counsel for the petitioners failed to appear before the court after repeated adjournments.
This decision dismisses a writ petition for non-prosecution as counsel for the petitioners failed to appear before the court after repeated adjournments.
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.
C.W.P. No. 18347 of 1991
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 18347 of 1991 Date of decision : 15.02.2011
Baldev Singh and others
....Petitioner
versus
The State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present : Nemo for the petitioners.
Mr. R.S. Rawat, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent No.1.
Nemo for remaining respondents.
M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral)
This writ petition was filed in this Court on 10.12.1991 and was admitted on 12.12.1991. Thereafter on 12.08.1993, the following order was passed: -
“This case was admitted on December 12, 1991 and ordered to be heard within a year. It seems that there was some anxiety for early disposal of the case at that stage which is not evinced now. In spite of the fact that it is 12.35 PM now no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. De-listed to be taken up strictly in routine.”
The bare perusal of the record would reveal that none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 07.02.2011, when this petition came up for hearing. Consequently, the case was adjourned to 15.02.2011 for arguments
Today, again no one is present on their behalf despite the case having been called twice.
From the sequence of events narrated here-in-above, it appears that neither the petitioners nor their counsel are interested in pursuing the petition.
C.W.P. No. 18347 of 1991
-2-
Therefore, no option is left with this Court except to dismiss the writ petition for
non-prosecution.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed for non-
prosecution.
( M ehinder S ingh S ullar ) Judge
February 15, 2011 G.Arora
Baldev Singh and others
The State of Punjab and others
Mehendar Singh Sullar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court