Petitioner did not appear to pursue the revision petition despite adjournment; counsel had no instructions. The court found the petitioner no longer interested and dismissed the petition in default 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
351 CR-1754-2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.09.2024
BHURA SINGH …..Pe--oner
Vs.
MOHINDER SINGH …..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: None.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
On the last date of hearing, the following order was passed:-
“Counsel for both the sides submit that they are not in contact with their respesc�ve clients and they are also not aware that whether any cause of ac�on s�ll survives or not.
As per request of learned counsel for the par�es, adjourned to 10.09.2024 so as to obtain instruc�ons.”
Today nobody has put in appearance on behalf of any of the par�es.
There is nothing on record to show that any of the counsel obtained any further instruc�ons. The pe��oner is not coming forward before this Court so as to pursue this pe��on. It appears that pe��oner is no longer interested in pursuing this pe��on.
Dismissed in default for want of prosecu�on.
( DEEPAK GUPTA )
13.09.2024
JUDGE
pry
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
PRIYANKA 2024.09.13 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Bhura Singh
Mohinder Singh
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
