Dismissed¶23

Ram Das etc. v. Baba Chetna Nand Giri etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jan 2025COCP/592/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PHHC (Chandigarh) | RSA-3718-2000 & connected COCP-592-2001 | Ram Dass and others v. Smadh Baba Tirath Gir / Baba Chetna Nand Giri and others | default dismissal for want of prosecution (appellants/petitioners absent, notices returned undelivered, no address on record) | liberty to seek revival if cause of action survives | Deepak Gupta, J. | 21.01.2025

What did the court decide?

Dismissal in default for want of prosecution of both the appeal RSA-3718-2000 and the connected contempt petition COCP-592-2001, with liberty to get them revived in case any cause of action survives; photocopy of the order to be placed on the files of the connected case. ¶23

Ram Das etc. Vs Baba Chetna Nand Giri etc. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal (RSA-3718-2000) and the connected contempt petition (COCP-592-2001) should be dismissed for want of prosecution where none of the appellants/petitioners appeared and could not be served at the recorded addresses.

¶23

Court's answer

The present appeal (RSA-3718-2000) is dismissed in default for want of prosecution, with liberty to the appellants to get it revived, in case any cause of action survives.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The connected contempt petition (COCP-592-2001) is likewise dismissed in default for want of prosecution, with liberty to get it revived, in case any cause of action survives.

¶23

Key takeaways

A photocopy of this order is to be placed on the files of the connected case.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (Deepak Gupta, J., oral), decided 21.01.2025 — RSA-3718-2000 (Ram Dass and others v. Smadh Baba Tirath Gir) alongwith connected COCP-592-2001 (Ram Dass and others v. Baba Chetna Nand Giri and others): the counsel earlier representing the petitioner(s) had his brief taken back by the clients and there was no representation; notices thereafter issued to all the appellants were received back with the report that none of them were residing at the given addresses, and no other address of the appellants was available on record. Held: none of the appellants having come forward to pursue the appeal, the appeal as well as the connected contempt petition were dismissed in default for want of prosecution, with liberty to get them revived in case any cause of action survives; a photocopy of the order was directed to be placed on the files of the connected case. No statute or precedent cited; the underlying decree/order challenged in the appeal is not described in this order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

112 RSA-3718-2000 Date of Decision: 21.01.2025

¶3

RAM DASS AND OTHERS …..Appellants

¶4

Vs.

¶5

SMADH BABA TIRATH GIR …..Respondent **** COCP-592-2001 RAM DASS AND OTHERS …..Pe00oners Vs.

¶6

BABA CHETNA NAND GIRI AND OTHERS …..Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶8

Present: None for the appellant (in RSA-3718-2000 ).

¶9

None for the pe��oner (in COCP-592-2001 ).

¶10

Mr.Vishal Garg Narwana, Mr.Rahul Gupta, Mr.Rajat Sheokand, Mr.Abhijit Sohal, Mr.Minku Sangwan, Mr.Aman Mi$al, Mr. Khuswant Sharan, Mr. Vikas Barala, Advocates, for the respondent.

¶11

¶12

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

On the last date of hearing, the following order was passed by this

¶14

Court:-

¶15

“The office report in connected case says that the le$er issued to the counsel for the pe��oner(s), who was earlier represen�ng the pe��oner(s), has been received with the report that bried has been taken back by the clients. There is no representa�on on behalf of the pe��oner(s) today.

¶16

Let no�ce be sent to the pe��oner(s) for enabling them to engage counsel and for pursuing their case.

¶17

Adjourned to 21.01.2025.”

¶18

Today, no�ces issued to all the appellants have been received with

¶19

the similar report that none of them are residing at the given address.

¶20

PRIYANKA 2025.01.22 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

RSA-3718-2000 -22025:PHHC:008410 COCP-592-2001 2025:PHHC:008419

¶22

No other address of the appellants is available on record.

¶23

Since none of the appellants have come forward to pursue this appeal, the Court is le= with no other op�on but to dismiss the present appeal ( RSA-3718-2000 ) as well as the connected contempt pe��on ( COCP-592-2001 ) in default for want of prosecu�on with liberty to them to get it revived, in case any cause of ac�on survives.

¶24

Ordered accordingly.

¶25

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected case.

¶26

			( DEEPAK GUPTA )
21.01.2025			JUDGE
pry
	Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes/No
	Whether reportable :		Yes/No

¶27

PRIYANKA 2025.01.22 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ram Das etc. v. Baba Chetna Nand Giri etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Das etc. v. Baba Chetna Nand Giri etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Vs Omkar

Kewal Krishan Sharma and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Harpreet Kaur Vs the Fatehgarh Sahib Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Head Office Sirhind

Ram Dass Vs Smadh Baba Tirath Gir

Deepak Jyoti Vs P.S.T.C. and or.

Vasudev Anand Vs Punjab Urban Planning and Dev. Authority (Puda)