The appeal was dismissed due to want of prosecution as the appellant's counsel stated there were no instructions to plead.
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.
FAO-111-1993 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-111-1993 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 19, 2014
Dharam Singh and another
...Appellants
Versus
Bed Kaur and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate, for the respondents.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
Learned counsel for the appellants states at the bar that he has no instructions to plead on behalf of the appellants and the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
Dismissed for want of prosecution.
August 19, 2014 Pkapoor
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE
PRASHANT KAPOOR I attest to the accuracy of this order
20.08.2014 10:29
Dharam Singh and another
Bed Kaur and others
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
