IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2565 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : 16.4.2009 Ram Dutt & others ....Appellants Versus Tara & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. A.L.Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 10 ... MAHESH GROVER, J. On 13.7.2006, notice of motion was issued. Thereafter, the following orders were passed on the dates when the matter was fixed :- 25.5.2007 Respondent No.11 is stated to be not residing at the given address. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for a month's time to furnish correct address of respondent No.11. On doing so, let fresh notice be issued to respondent No.11 for 11.9.2007. 11.9.2007 Learned counsel for the appellant prays for a week's time R.S.A.No.2565 of 2006 (O&M) -2- to comply with the order dated May 25, 2007. On doing so, let fresh notice be issued to respondent No.11 for 18.12.2007. 18.12.2007 The learned counsel for the appellants states that the order dated 25.5.2007 could not be complied with as the appellants were unable to furnish the correct address of respondent No.11. He prays for further time to comply with the order dated 25.5.2007. Adjourned to 24.1.2008. 24.1.2008 As per office report, notice could not be issued to respondent No.11 for want of correct address. On furnishing correct address of respondent No.11 by the appellant within two weeks from today, issue notice to respondent No.11 for 19.05.2008. 12.8.2008 Notice could not be issued to respondent No.11 for want of PF and correct address. Process fee and correct address be filed within a four days from today and then notice be issued to respondent No.11 for 19.1.2009. 19.1.2009 Respondent No.11 remains unserved for want of correct address. Learned counsel for the appellants prays for some time to make an appropriate application to serve the said unserved respondent through alternate mode of process. Let the needful be done within a period of three weeks. Adjourned to 16.4.2009. A perusal of the aforesaid orders reveals that the counsel R.S.A.No.2565 of 2006 (O&M) -3- for the appellants has deliberately delayed the proceedings by either not furnishing the process fee or the correct address. On each and every date the situation had been noticed and opportunity was granted to do the needful. Today when the matter was taken up it was noticed that the process fee and correct address of unserved respondent i.e. respondent No.11 has still not been filed. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 10 pointed out that respondent No.11 is the real brother of the appellant. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the considered opinion that there is a deliberate intent on the part of the learned counsel for the appellants to delay the proceedings. The appeal is of the year 2006 and till 2009 the appellants have failed to furnish either the process fee or the correct address of the unserved respondent. Dismissed for want of prosecution. 16.4.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss