The High Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to comply with an order to deposit litigation expenses and appeared in person without instructions.
The appeal was 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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 680 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 12, 2013
Pala Ram
....Appellant
Versus
Partap Singh
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH
Present : Mr. S.L. Barwala, Advocate, for the appellant.
****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL , J. (Oral)
Inspite of opportunities having been provided to the appellant to comply with the order dated February 20, 2013, whereby the appellant is required to deposit `25,000/- towards litigation expenses, has not been complied with.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
July 12, 2013 sonika
(JASPAL SINGH) JUDGE
Pala Ram
Partap Singh
Ayay Kumar Mittal
Jaspal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
