Prasad Nagar Residents Organisation Vs. The Vice Chairman, DDA
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2645 of 1991
Petitioner: Prasad Nagar Residents Organisation
Respondent: The Vice Chairman, DDA
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2645 of 1991
Judges: M. JAGANNADHA RAO & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 08, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Constitution
Article 136 – Appeal – Notice issued several times – None appearing – Person pursuing the matter, old and infirm – Unable to engage Counsel and legal aid not possible. Held that appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Paras 2 to 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Prasad Nagar Residents’ Organisation, C-8, Prasad Nagar, New Delhi, against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 19th December, 1990 in Revision Petition No. 59 of 1990. The National Commission dismissed the revision as time barred.
2. In this appeal, notice was issued on 19.07.96 and there were some objections raised by the Registry in respect of which an office note was put up. The case of the appellants’ organisation was being represented by its president Mr. Sachidanand Hassija. This Court directed a fresh notice to be issued to him on 20.7.99. It appears, the said Mr. Hassija had sent a letter dated 24.8.99 and therefore the matter was adjourned by this Court on 23.9.99 and a fresh notice was directed to be issued to the appellant. On 14.12.99 when the matter was called, none was present for the appellant. The matter came up again on 5.4.2000 when fresh notice was issued to the appellant, informing him that the matter will be taken up on the adjourned date.
3. Now we have on record a letter dated 18.7.2000 addressed by the said Mr. Hassija to the Assistant Registrar of this Court stating that he is now 74 years old and has not been keeping good health. He says he is stone-deaf and having poor vision and tottering legs, cannot stand and is mostly in bed. He has spoken to his colleagues and other residents but none has shown any interest in the matter. He says he is unable to engage any lawyer. He has, therefore, stated that the case may be allowed to take its own natural course as he is unable to pursue the matter for reasons beyond his control. He has also stated that he had been informed that it is not possible to grant legal aid to him in this case.
4. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Prasad Nagar Residents’ Organisation, C-8, Prasad Nagar, New Delhi, against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 19th December, 1990 in Revision Petition No. 59 of 1990. The National Commission dismissed the revision as time barred.
2. In this appeal, notice was issued on 19.07.96 and there were some objections raised by the Registry in respect of which an office note was put up. The case of the appellants’ organisation was being represented by its president Mr. Sachidanand Hassija. This Court directed a fresh notice to be issued to him on 20.7.99. It appears, the said Mr. Hassija had sent a letter dated 24.8.99 and therefore the matter was adjourned by this Court on 23.9.99 and a fresh notice was directed to be issued to the appellant. On 14.12.99 when the matter was called, none was present for the appellant. The matter came up again on 5.4.2000 when fresh notice was issued to the appellant, informing him that the matter will be taken up on the adjourned date.
3. Now we have on record a letter dated 18.7.2000 addressed by the said Mr. Hassija to the Assistant Registrar of this Court stating that he is now 74 years old and has not been keeping good health. He says he is stone-deaf and having poor vision and tottering legs, cannot stand and is mostly in bed. He has spoken to his colleagues and other residents but none has shown any interest in the matter. He says he is unable to engage any lawyer. He has, therefore, stated that the case may be allowed to take its own natural course as he is unable to pursue the matter for reasons beyond his control. He has also stated that he had been informed that it is not possible to grant legal aid to him in this case.
4. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
