The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition for non-prosecution. The judge observed that the petitioner failed to furnish correct addresses and was absent for multiple hearings over a year, indicating disinterest in prosecuting the matter.
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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 3328 of 2011 Date of decision : September 13, 2013
Surjit Singh
....Petitioner
versus
M/s Birla Global Finance Limited and another
....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : None
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Inspite of last opportunity, correct address of respondent no. 1 and registered cover not furnished. None is either present for the petitioner None either appeared for the petitioner on the preceding date of hearing. Correct address of respondent no. 1 and registered AD cover have not been furnished for the last several dates of hearing spread over more than one year. It is, thus, apparent that the petitioner is no longer interested in prosecuting this revision petition.
It may be mentioned that in the revision petition, challenge is to order dated 9.5.2005 Annexure P/1 passed by the trial court thereby dismissing application filed by defendant no. 1-petitioner for referring the dispute to Arbitrator. However, the revision petition has been filed six
Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.13 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 3328 of 2011
-2-
years after the passing of the said order and in fact after the decision of the suit on merits vide judgment and decree dated 15.1.2011 Annexures P/2 and P/3 which are also under challenge in this revision petition. The revision petition is apparently not maintainable because judgment and decree Annexures P/2 and P/3 are appealable and in appeal, that could be preferred against the said final judgment and decree, even order Annexure P/1 passed during pendency of the suit could have been challenged. Moreover, order Annexure P/1 could not be challenged by filing revision petition six years after the passing of the order. It appears that for these reasons, the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this revision petition.
Dismissed for non-prosecution.
( L.N. Mittal ) September 13, 2013 Judge 'dalbir'
Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.13 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a revision petition should be maintained where the petitioner failed to furnish addresses and did not appear for several hearings despite reminders.
Surjit Singh
M/s Birla Global Finance Limited and another
L.N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
