The High Court dismissed the appeal after finding that notice could not be issued to respondent No. 1 because the appellant failed to furnish the correct address despite multiple orders and opportunities.
Notice to respondent No. 1 could not be issued due to non-furnishing of correct address by appellant's counsel.
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
F.A.O. No.365 of 2011 Date of Decision: 31.10.2014
Gajbir Singh
---Appellant
versus
Sombir Singh and others
---Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
Present: Mr. Anil Ghangas, Advocate for the appellant
REKHA MITTAL, J.
Notice to respondent No. 1 could not be issued as counsel for the appellant did not furnish his correct address despite last opportunity granted for the purpose.
Perusal of the record reveals that the case is pending since 10.09.2012 for furnishing of correct address of respondent No. 1 and since then the case has been adjourned for half a dozen times seeking compliance of the orders but to no effect. On the last date i.e. 2.4.2014, the order passed by this court reads as follows:-
“Last opportunity is granted to the learned counsel for the appellant to file the correct address of respondent No.1 within three weeks, thereafter fresh notice be issued
F.A.O. No.365 of 2011
-2-
to him for 31.10.2014.”
In view of the above, I do not see any reason to allow another
opportunity to the appellant to comply with the orders.
Dismissed.
(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE
31.10.2014
PARAMJIT
Gajbir Singh
Sombir Singh
others
Rekha Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
