RSA No.2073 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2073 of 1989 Date of Decision:09.12.2011 Gurdev Singh & Ors. .....appellants Versus Municipal Committee, Gurdaspur .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: None *** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.(ORAL): This appeal was fixed for regular hearing and was taken up on 02.11.2011. On 02.11.2011, none appeared on behalf of either of the parties. In the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to 18.11.2011 and it was also directed that the learned counsel for the parties be informed about the date fixed. In compliance of the order dated 02.11.2011, letters No. 7550, 7551 and 7552 dated 07.11.2011 were issued to the learned counsel for the parties, which were received back duly served, as per report dated 17.11.2011. When the matter was taken up on 18.11.2011, again, none appeared on behalf of either of the parties. While adjourning the matter to 02.12.2011, the office was again directed to inform learned counsel for the parties and to make a specific report about the service. On 02.12.2011, Mr.Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellants and apprised this Court that he was only an instructing counsel to Mr.D.S.Bali, RSA No.2073 of 1989 2 Senior Advocate and he had no instructions in the matter. However, he assured the Court that he will inform Mr.D.S.Bali, Senior Advocate, who is to argue this matter. On request of Mr.Sehrawat, the case was adjourned for today. Now, office report dated 08.12.2011 shows that in compliance of the order dated 02.12.2011, a letter was issued to Mr.I.P.S.Doabia,Advocate and according to service report Mr.I.P.S.Doabia, Advocate has been duly served. In view of the above, it prima facie seems that the appellants are not interested in pursuing this appeal. Thus, in view of the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 17(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Deptt.of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Anr.versus Raghu Raj, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 514, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 09.12.2011 neenu