The Court dismissed the transfer application filed by the applicant for want of prosecution, noting that the applicant did not appear despite service of notice.
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.
TA-736-2024 Date of Decision: 18.09.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.247
URMILA
....Applicant
Versus
NASIB SINGH AHLAWAT
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present:None for the applicant.
ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)
As per office noting, notice could not be issued to the respondent, as process fee has not been filed by the counsel.
Even today, none has made appearance on behalf of the applicant. Seemingly, the applicant is not interested in pursuing the present transfer application.
Hence, the same is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
| 18.09.2024 | (ARCHANA PURI) JUDGE |
|
|---|---|---|
| Sonu | ||
| Whether speaking/reasoned : |
Yes/No | |
| Whether reportable : |
Yes/No |
Sonu 2024.09.18 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
URMILA
NASIB SINGH AHLAWAT
ARCHANA PURI
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
