RSA No.3853 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3853 of 2006 Date of decision: 9.3.2010 Daropadi Devi and another ......Appellant(s) Versus Raghuvansh Kishore and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: None. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This appeal which pertains to the year 2006 came up for motion hearing for the first time on 28.10.2006. The various orders passed by this Court read as follows: “Present: None. Put up the file for consideration on 30.11.2006. October 28, 2006 (S.N. AGGARWAL) JUDGE Present: Mr. PPS Tung, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Tung prays for an adjournment. Put up the file for consideration on 25.1.2007. 30.11.2006 (S.N. AGGARWAL) JUDGE Present: None. RSA No.3853 of 2006 2 In the interest of justice, adjourned to 13.2.2007. 25.1.2007 (KIRAN ANAND LALL) JUDGE Present: None In the interest of justice, once again adjourned to 19.3.2007. It is, however, made clear that in view of the earlier orders on the file, no further adjournment will be granted. 13.2.2007 (KIRAN ANAND LALL) JUDGE Present: Shri PPS Tung, Advocate for the appellant. At the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, adjourned to 20.3.2007. 19.3.2007 (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE Present: Shri PPS Tung, Advocate for the appellant. At the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, adjourned to 17.4.2007. 20.3.2007 (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE Present: None for the appellant. None is present on behalf of the appellant in spite of the fact that the case was passed over earlier. The case has been adjourned six times in the urgent motion. Dismissed for want of prosecution. 17.4.2007 (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE RSA No.3853 of 2006 3 Thereafter, CM No.3417-C of 2007 filed for restoration of appeal which came up for hearing on 3.5.2009 and the following order was passed: Present: None. Case is called twice. None appears. List on 10.5.2007. 3.5.2007 (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE Present: None. Case has been called twice. None has put in appearance. Dismissed in default. May 10, 2007 (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE Again CM No.6037-CII of 2007 was filed and the order passed reads as: Present: None. No one is present on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, the application for restoration of the appeal is dismissed in default. July 27, 2007 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE Again another application being CM No.6850-C of 2007 was filed and the order reads as: Present: Mr. P.P.S Tung, Advocate for the applicant- appellant. Adjourned to 12.9.2007 for consideration. August 17, 2007 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE Present: None. RSA No.3853 of 2006 4 No one is present on behalf of the applicant- appellant. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 21.9.2007. 12.9.2007 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE Present: None. On May 10, 2007, when counsel for the appellants did not appear in spite of the calling of the case twice, the appeal was dismissed in default. Subsequently, counsel for the appellants filed CM No.6037-C of 2007 for recalling the said order. The said application was also barred by limitation. When it was listed for hearing on July 27, 2007, no one was present on behalf of the appellants and the application was also dismissed in default. Thereafter, now the instant application has been filed for re-calling the order dated July 27, 2007. It was listed on September 12, 2007, on which date, none was present on behalf of the appellants and case was adjourned for today. Even today, in spite of the calling of the case twice, no body has appeared on behalf of the applicants-appellants. Dismissed in default. September 21, 2007 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE Again an application being CM No.9696-C of 2007 came up for hearing. The order reads as: Present: Mr. P.P.S Tung, Advocate for the applicant- appellants. On request, adjourned to 12.12.2007 November 16, 2007 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE Thereafter on 12.12.2007, CM Nos.9696-C, 6850-C, 6037-C & 3417-C of 2007 came up for hearing which were allowed and the Registry was directed to list the main appeal for motion hearing as per roster. The RSA No.3853 of 2006 5 order reads as: Present: Mr. P.P.S. Tung, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. C.M. No. 9696-C of 2007 This application has been filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC for re-calling the order dated September 21, 2007, passed by this Court, whereby CM No. 6850-C of 2007 (application for re-calling the order dated July 27, 2007) was dismissed in default. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the Advocate, the order dated September 21, 2007, is recalled and C.M. No. 6850-C of 2007 is restored to its original number. Application is allowed accordingly. C.M. No. 6850-C of 2007 This application has been filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC for re-calling the order dated July 27, 2007, passed by this Court, whereby CM No. 6037-C of 2007 (application for re-calling the order dated May 10, 2007) was dismissed in default. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit of Clerk of the Advocate, the order dated July 27, 2007, is recalled and C.M. No. 6037-C of 2007 is restored to its original number. Application is allowed accordingly. C.M. No. 6037-C of 2007 This application has been filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC for re-calling the order dated May 10, 2007, passed by this Court, whereby CM No. 3417-C of 2007 (application for re-calling the order dated April 17, 2007) was dismissed in default. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the Advocate, the order dated May 10, 2007, is recalled and C.M. No. 3417-C of 2007 is restored to its original number. Application is allowed accordingly. C.M. No. 3417-C of 2007 This application has been filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC for re-calling the order dated April 17, 2007, passed by this Court, whereby RSA No. 3853 of 2006 was dismissed in default. RSA No.3853 of 2006 6 For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the Clerk of the Advocate, the order dated April 17, 2007 is recalled and RSA No. 3853 of 2006 is restored to its original number. Application is allowed accordingly. RSA No. 3853 of 2006 Registry is directed to list the appeal for motion hearing as per roster. December 12, 2007 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE Present: None. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 24.4.2008. February 18, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE Present: None. Let the actual date of hearing notice be issued to the appellants for 30.7.2008. April 24, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE Present: None. After the case was listed for motion hearing on 12.12.2007, none appeared on behalf of the appellants on 18.2.2008 and 24.4.2008. It appears that the appellants are not interested to argue the case. Last opportunity is granted to the appellants to argue the matter. List again on 18.8.2008 for arguments. July 30, 2008 (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE Present: None for the appellants. A perusal of the case file clearly spells out that on the last three consecutive dates of hearing i.e. 18.2.2008, 24.4.2008 and 30.7.2008, none had put in appearance on behalf of the appellants. Today also no one is present on behalf of the appellants. RSA No.3853 of 2006 7 It appears that the present appeal is being treated in a leisurely fashion. For this lapse, the appellants must suffer. Dismissed for non prosecution. August 18, 2008 (H.S. BHALLA) JUDGE Later, on filing of CM No.746-C of 2010 for restoration of appeal, the same was allowed and the appeal was restored to its original number. The order reads as: Present: Mr. Sumit Puri, Advocate for the appellants. CM No.745-C of 2010 CM is allowed. Delay in filing the application for restoration is condoned. CM No.746-C of 2010 CM is allowed and the case is restored to its original number. To be listed as per roster. February 11, 2010 (H.S. BHALLA) JUDGE” Thereafter, the Office has listed the case before this Court for preliminary hearing. As per Office report, counsel has been informed about the fixation of the case. However, no one is present to represent the appellants. Dismissed for non-prosecution. March 9, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE