The single Judge dismissed an unrepresented appeal for want of prosecution, noting the appellants were absent for the second time despite two prior calls.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-2576-SB-2018
Date of Decision: 04.04.2019
Gobind Jakhar and another
.... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present: None for the appellants.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Despite the case having been called twice, the appellants have gone un-represented.
Perusal of the file shows that on the previous date also i.e. 20.11.2018, the appellants had gone un-represented.
Therefore, it can safely be presumed that neither the
appellants nor their counsel are interested in pursuing the instant appeal
Therefore, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
April 04, 2019 (RAMENDRA JAIN) rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
RISHU KATARIA 2019.04.05 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Gobind Jakhar
another
State of Punjab
RAMENDRA JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
