The High Court dismissed an appeal for recovery of goods as the sole respondent-firm had closed, the appellant's proprietor had died, and no representative was found to proceed with 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.
1
RSA No.555 of 1986
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.555 of 1986 Date of decision:08.07.2013
M/s Mehar Singh and another
....Appellants
Versus
M/s Kesar Singh
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present:- Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants.
None for the respondent.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)
The suit for recovery of a sum of ` 7499.70 paise as balance price of the goods sold by the plaintiffs/ respondents to the appellants was dismissed by the trial Court. However, the appeal was accepted and the same was decreed by the lower Appellate Court.
The impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is under challenge in this appeal.
The order dated 15.04.1986 passed by this Court reads
thus:-
“Admitted. The decretal amount should be deposited by the appellants in the Executing Court within three months and the same shall be withdrawn by the decree-holder-respondents on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Executing Court after due notice to the appellants.”
RSA No.555 of 1986
2
It may further be noticed that no substantial questions of law arising out of this appeal have been framed till date.
On 20th March, 2009, keeping in view the aforesaid fact and the factum of the amount involved, the following order was passed:-
“Learned counsel for the appellants prays for time to place on record the substantial questions of law said to be arising in this appeal and also to seek instructions whether something survives in the appeal or not.
Adjourned to 25.05.2009.”
On 6th May, 2013, when the case came up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellants has informed this Court that counsel representing the respondent had expired and in these circumstances, notice was issued to the respondent for today.
As per office report, sole respondent who is a firm, is not found at the present address as the “firm had closed since long time.”
Learned counsel representing the appellant has further informed this Court that appellant No.2 who is proprietor of appellant No.1 has also died.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts as narrated above, this Court is not inclined to proceed further with this appeal and the same is hereby ordered to be dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
July 08, 2013 savita
RSA No.555 of 1986 3
M/s Mehar Singh and another
M/s Kesar Singh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
