Dismissed

Gurcharan Singh Sodhi v. Goetze (India) Ltd. Bahadurgarh, Patiala

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jul 2014FAO/817/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal in default under Order 41 Rule 17 CPC. The appellant did not appear, the case file was destroyed in a fire, and no copies were supplied despite notices. The respondent requested time, but the default dismissal was upheld with liberty to revive upon filing the record.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed in default under Order 41 Rule 17 CPC with liberty to revive.

Gurcharan Singh Sodhi Vs Goetze… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

FAO No.817 of 1997

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.817 of 1997 Date of decision: 23.07.2014

¶5

Gurcharan Singh Sodhi

¶6

.....Appellant

¶7

versus

¶8

Goetze (India) Ltd. Bahadurgarh, Patiala .... Respondent

¶9

Present: None for the appellant.

¶10

Ms.Monika Jalota, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

S.S. SARON, J.

¶12

The appeal has been filed by Gurcharan Singh Sodhi.

¶13

The case file of the present case was burnt in the fire that broke out on 30.1.2011. The matter was widely reported in the Press. Appeals were issued to the general public and to the Bar to supply copies of the paper book to help the Court to reconstruct the files. Several counsel did supply copies of the paper book. Some of the cases were re-constructed and posted for hearing. Letter was written to the counsel for the appellant Sh. Rajinder Krishan Aggarwal, Advocate to supply copy of the paper book in the present case. However, neither the paper book has been supplied nor any one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. The letter was received by the advocate on 09.12.2013. The case was taken up on 26.03.2014. However, Mr. Rajinder Krishan Aggarwal whose name also appears in the

¶14

AMIT KAUNDAL 2014.08.04 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

FAO No.817 of 1997

¶16

-2-

¶17

cause list did not appear neither he supplied the paper book. Notice was issued to the appellant - Gurcharan Singh Sodhi at the address of Goetze (India) Ltd., Bahadurgarh, Patiala as the case is against them. Notice was sent to him at the said address; besides, notice was also issued to the respondent i.e. Goetze (India) Ltd., Bahadurgarh, Patiala.

¶18

Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate appeared for the respondent on 14.05.2014. The vakalatnama filed by her in Court was taken on record. She prayed for time to ascertain whether Gurcharan Singh Sodhi -appellant had been an employee of Goetze (India) Ltd., Bahadurgarh District Patiala and also ascertain whether other records are available; besides, as to how he was connected with the case.

¶19

Today when the case was taken up, no one has appeared for the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that after verification, no person in the name of Gurcharan Singh Sodhi has been located in the office of the respondent. Therefore, there is no record in the case and despite requests sent to learned counsel for the appellant, none has appeared. The record also could not be reconstructed.

¶20

In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed in default in terms of Order 41 Rule 17 CPC with liberty to the appellant to revive the same when restoration of the case along with the paper book of the main case is filed.

¶21

A copy of the order be sent to the learned counsel for

¶22

AMIT KAUNDAL 2014.08.04 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

FAO No.817 of 1997

¶24

-3-

¶25

the appellant as the address of the appellant is not available. The Court master to ensure that disposal of the case is entered in the ISHiCo (Mozilla). The case is consigned to the record.

¶26

(S.S. SARON) JUDGE

¶27

23.07.2014 A.Kaundal

¶28

AMIT KAUNDAL 2014.08.04 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Gurcharan Singh Sodhi v. Goetze (India) Ltd. Bahadurgarh, Patiala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurcharan Singh Sodhi v. Goetze (India) Ltd. Bahadurgarh, Patiala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pritpal Singh Vs Authorized Officer Punjab & Sind Bank &Anr

(O&M) Inderpal Vs Mohan Lal

Mahender Singh Vs Satbir Singh

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mohinder Singh and Others

Rajwant Kaur etc. Vs Sukhdev Singh etc.

Hakam Singh Vs State of Punjab