The High Court, on an oral application, dispensed with service on respondent Nos. 4 and 6 ex parte. Due to the appellant's lack of representation and failure to file correct addresses for other respondents, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 1.03.2018.
The appeal was dismissed for non-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.
RSA No.307 of 1999 (O&M)
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.307 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision:01.03.2018
Union Bank of India ... Appellant
Vs.
Narinder Kaur Chadha and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:None.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
This Court, on 22.01.2018 passed the following order:-
“Present: None.
As per office report, fresh notice could not be issued to respondent Nos.2 to 6 as the learned counsel has not filed the correct address.
Respondent Nos.4 and 6, who are defendant Nos.2 and 4 before
the Court below, were proceeded ex parte and accordingly, in view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 14 and sub-Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, service upon respondent Nos.4 and 6 is dispensed with.
On filing of correct address of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5, let fresh notice be issued to them for 01.03.2018, failing which,
Savita 2018.03.06 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
{2}
RSA No.307 of 1999 (O&M)
the appeal qua respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 shall be dismissed. The Registry is directed to inform Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate representing the appellant for compliance of the order.”
Office report reads as under :-
R.No.1 - Represented by counsel. R.No.4, 6 - Service dispensed with vide order dated 22.1.2018
Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate has been informed for compliance of order dated 22.1.2018.
Fresh notices could not be issued to respondents no.2, 3 and 5 as correct addresses not filed by counsel so far.”
Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the
appellant. It appears that appellant is not interested in pursuing the matter.
Dismissed for non-prosecution.
| (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE |
|
|---|---|
| March 01, 2018 | |
| savita | |
| Whether Speaking/Reasoned | Yes/No |
| Whether Reportable | Yes/No |
Savita 2018.03.06 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution in the absence of appellant representation and due notice to respondents.
Whether service on respondents could be dispensed with ex parte.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Union Bank of India
Narinder Kaur Chadha and others
AMIT RAWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
