The petitioner failed to appear or be represented on two consecutive dates. The court presumed lack of interest and dismissed the petition 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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-17888-2018 DATE OF DECISION:-28.03.2019
MANUSH CHUGH
...PETITIONER...
V.
POOJA GARG
...RESPONDENT...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the respondent.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Perusal of file shows that since last two consecutive dates i.e. 08.08.2018 and 18.05.2018, the petitioner had gone unrepresented. Today, also none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
In the above factual position, it can safely be presumed that petitioner or his counsel is no more interested in pursuing the present petition.
Instant petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
28.03.2019 (RAMENDRA JAIN) sonika JUDGE
whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No whether reportable: Yes/No
SONIKA 2019.03.29 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
MANUSH CHUGH
POOJA GARG
RAMENDRA JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
