The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a criminal revision petition for want of prosecution due to the petitioners' failure to respond to repeated calls and to deposit imposed costs.
The present petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 13710 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 11, 2012
Rakesh Kumar and others
…Petitioners
Versus
Jai Narain and another
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, , for the petitioners.
Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No. 2.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
Learned counsel submits that in spite of repeated information, the petitioners are not responding to his call. He further submits that the petitioners were even informed to deposit the costs imposed by this Court, but they failed to respond.
In view of the above, this Court is left with no other remedy but to dismiss the present petition for want of prosecution. Ordered accordingly.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) December 11, 2012 JUDGE Pkapoor
Rakesh Kumar and others
Jai Narain
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
