The single judge dismissed a 1998 writ petition by default for hearing. The court noted that key petitioners refused notice and were not interested in pursuing the matter.
The writ petition was dismissed.
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 FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.10838 of 1998
Date of Decision.24.04.2017
Nasib Kaur and others
........Petitioners
Vs
Financial Commissioner Appeals II Punjab, Chandigarh and others
........Respondents
Present: None for the petitioners.
Mr. Akaant Kumar Mitttal, Advocate for Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
-.- AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)
As per office report, petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 have died and petitioner Nos.1 and 5 have refused to take notice. The writ petition is of the year 1998 and this Court, while admitting the matter on 16.01.2001, granted status quo regarding possession.
In view of the refusal to take notice and the fact that the petitioners have taken brief from the counsel appearing for them, it is clear that petitioners, particularly, petitioner Nos.1 and 5 are not interested in pursuing the matter.
The writ petition is dismissed for default of appearance and non-prosecution.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
April 24, 2017 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.04.25 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Nasib Kaur and others
Financial Commissioner Appeals II Punjab
Others
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
