Regular appeal dismissed in default as neither the appellant nor respondents 1, 2 and 6 to 10 (ordered proceeded ex parte) appeared; respondent No.3's notice could not be issued due to an incorrect address.
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.
���������������������������������������� ��������������
��������������������
Date of decision: 21st January, 2014
Deep Chand
� Appellant
Versus
Ram Mehar and others
� Respondents
������������������������������ ���� ����������
Mr. Balwan Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.
�� ���� ���������!����"����#
Vakalatnama of Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5 has been filed in Court.
As per the office report, notice to respondent No.3 could not be issued as counsel for the appellant has not filed the correct address of the aforesaid respondent.
As per the further report, respondents No.1, 2 and 6 to 10 have been served. However, none has put in appearance on their behalf. Thus, they are ordered to be proceeded against ex5parte.
No one is present on behalf of the appellant.
Dismissed in default.
"�� ���� ���������#� ������
�$%&$'(���!����)�
���
Singh Rattan Pal 2014.01.24 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
Deep Chand
Ram Mehar
Rattan Pal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
