RSA No.2159 of 2007(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2159 of 2007(O & M) Date of Decision:29.07.2010 Dhan Singh .... appellant Versus Sushil Kumar .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 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 for the appellant Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the respondent **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondent for recovery of Rs.60,000/- with future interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization, has been decreed. This appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant without complying with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 1(3) CPC. In its order dated 11.03.2010, this court had noticed that in this appeal, notice of motion was issued on 22.01.2008 and operation of the impugned judgment was stayed. Thereafter, the case was being adjourned. On March 11, 2010 this Court noticed that at least for the last four dates, the case was adjourned either in the absence of the counsel for the appellant or on his written request. Still the case was adjourned for 26.04.2010. On 26.04.2010, the appellant was directed to comply with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 1(3) CPC. On 05.07.2010, again it was noticed that the RSA No.2159 of 2007(O & M) 2 aforesaid provisions have not been complied with and the case was adjourned for today and it was further ordered that in case compliance of the order is not made, the interim order dated 22.01.2008 shall be deemed to be vacated. Today, no one is present on behalf of the appellant. Neither there is any material on the basis of which it can be made out that compliance of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 1(3) has been made. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Poonam vs.Sumit Tanwar(AIR 2010 SC 1384) has observed as under: “In absence of proper assistance to Court by the lawyer, there is no obligation on the part of the Court to decide the case, for the simple reason that unless the lawyer renders the proper assistance to the Court, the Court is not able to decide the case. It is not for the Court itself to decide the controversy. The counsel cannot just raise the issues in his petition and leave it to the Court to give its decision on those points after going through the record and determining the correctness thereof. It is not for the Court itself to find out what the points for determination can be and then proceed to give a decision on those points. In case counsel for the party is not able to render any assistance, the Court may decline to entertain the petition”. Faced with this situation, this court has no option but to dismiss this appeal. Ordered accordingly. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 29.07.2010 neenu