Appellant failed to file fresh addresses of respondents despite two orders. Court found neither party appeared. Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Appeal 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.
Criminal Misc.No.42673 of 2013 in/and Criminal Misc.No.A-833-MA of 2013
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No.42673 of 2013 in/and Criminal Misc.No.A-833-MA of 2013 Date of Decision: February 24, 2015
M/s Kuldip Parkash & Sons
...Applicant
Versus
M/s Vee Ess Polyvin & Ors.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: None for the applicant.
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. (Oral)
On 09.09.2014,the following order was passed:-
“ As per office report, learned counsel for the appellant
has not filed fresh address of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to file
fresh address of the respondents.
On his doing so, let fresh notices be issued to the
respondents for 15.12.2014.”
On 15.12.2014, the following order was passed:-
“ In spite of the specific order, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to file fresh addresses of the respondents.
In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is
SEEMA RANI 2015.02.25 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Criminal Misc.No.42673 of 2013 in/and Criminal Misc.No.A-833-MA of 2013
[2]
afforded to learned counsel for the appellant to comply
with the order dated 19.05.2014.
Let the needful be done within 10 days of passing of this order and on his doing so, let fresh notice be issued to the respondents for 24.02.2015.
In case the above order is not complied with then the appeal shall be deemed to be dismissed for want of prosecution.”
Office report reveals that still fresh address of the respondent has not been supplied. No one had appeared on the last date of hearing. Today also no one has put in appearance for the applicant/appellant. It appears that neither the applicant/appellant nor its counsel is interested in pursuing the present case.
Dismissed for want of prosecution.
February 24, 2015 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge
SEEMA RANI 2015.02.25 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
M/s Kuldip Parkash & Sons
M/s Vee Ess Polyvin & Ors.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
