Bawa Nihal Singh Vs. The State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Faridkot
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.8392 of 1983
(From the Judgment and Order dated 11.0.79 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.F.A. No. 94 of 1975)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 11.0.79 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.F.A. No. 94 of 1975)
Petitioner: Bawa Nihal Singh
Respondent: The State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Faridkot
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.8392 of 1983
(From the Judgment and Order dated 11.0.79 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.F.A. No. 94 of 1975)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 11.0.79 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.F.A. No. 94 of 1975)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 01, 1995
Appearances:
Mrs. Kamaljeet Kochhar, Advocate for Mr. J.D. Jain, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Ranbir Yadav, Advocate for Mr. G.K. Bansal, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Appeal – Matter not prosecuted diligently – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. It is very unfortunate that the matter is not being prosecuted diligently. It is seen from the office report dated October 25, 1994 that after issue of notice by this Court on 3.5.1993, letters were issued to the counsel for the appellant on 15.5.1993, 13.6.1994, 15.7.1994 and 6.8.1994 with a default clause to pay the requisite deficit process fee and also to file copies of the applications. However, no action was taken. Again when the matter was listed on 3.5.1993, it was reported that one of the appellants died and his legal representatives were directed to be brought on record, notice to be taken and process fee along with miscellaneous petition was required to be deposited. The Registry of this Court has given notice to the counsel for payment of the requisite process fee along with the copies of petitions but that was also not done. When the matter was again posted before the Court on 2.1.1995 for further orders, this court ordered: “Four weeks for complying with the office objections. In default, the Civil Misc. Petition Nos.4315-17/87 shall stand dismissed”. Therefore, the applications by self-operation of the said order stand dismissed.
2. Consequently, the appeal also requires to be dismissed as having abated as a whole. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
1. It is very unfortunate that the matter is not being prosecuted diligently. It is seen from the office report dated October 25, 1994 that after issue of notice by this Court on 3.5.1993, letters were issued to the counsel for the appellant on 15.5.1993, 13.6.1994, 15.7.1994 and 6.8.1994 with a default clause to pay the requisite deficit process fee and also to file copies of the applications. However, no action was taken. Again when the matter was listed on 3.5.1993, it was reported that one of the appellants died and his legal representatives were directed to be brought on record, notice to be taken and process fee along with miscellaneous petition was required to be deposited. The Registry of this Court has given notice to the counsel for payment of the requisite process fee along with the copies of petitions but that was also not done. When the matter was again posted before the Court on 2.1.1995 for further orders, this court ordered: “Four weeks for complying with the office objections. In default, the Civil Misc. Petition Nos.4315-17/87 shall stand dismissed”. Therefore, the applications by self-operation of the said order stand dismissed.
2. Consequently, the appeal also requires to be dismissed as having abated as a whole. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
