Single judge order disposing of a petition where the advocate failed to address registry objections. No representation was present; the matter had no representation and was consigned to records without any substantive order.
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.
INCOMP-363-2024 -1 -
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
139 INCOMP-363-2024 (Diary No. 2255225) Case Type: CRM-M Date of decision: 18.11.2024
Rahul Arora
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: None.
NIDHI GUPTA, J. (Oral)
The aforesaid petition was filed on 24.01.2019 by Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate. However, certain objections were raised by the Registry on 25.01.2019.
As per Rule 9, Chapter I, Part-A, Volume V, Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, the petition, on which objections have been raised by the Registry is to be taken back by the counsel party, who filed it, to re-file within a period of 40 days. However, the same was not taken back for refiling after removal of objections. On failure, the case is to be listed before the Court for orders. Following note was displayed/published by the Registry in the causelist and website of this Hon’ble Court on 18.9.2024 and 25.9.2024:-
“All the Advocates/Parties are requested to collect the cases as mentioned in the list attached below
DIVYANSHI 2024.11.21 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
INCOMP-363-2024 -2 -
which are lying pending in the Objection Counter of DRR Branch and not taken back till today, within one month of the date of publication of this notice failing which all the cases except the Caveat Applications) will be listed before Hon’ble Court on judicial side for appropriate orders.”
Even after the publication of the note requesting the Advocate to collect his case for re-filing after rectification of objections, the needful was not done. Consequently, the matter has been listed before this Court in urgent list today.
There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts of the matter, no further
order is required to be passed. The file be consigned to the records.
18.11.2024 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI 2024.11.21 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Rahul Arora
State of Haryana
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
