IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3850 of 1991 (O&M) Date of Decision:06.05.2009 Kasturi Lal .......Petitioner Versus Amrit Lal and another ....Respondents Present: None. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. There is no representation for petitioner as well as the respondents, at the time when the matter is called. 2. It is seen that the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has died and the petitioner have not taken steps to engage the services of any other counsel nor he reported to Court. An attempt was made by the Court to serve notices to the parties directly for making appropriate alternative arrangements but the notices have not been received served or otherwise. The case is of the year 1991 and no purpose will be served for waiting over the attendance of the parties. Even the counsel for the petitioner is not present for giving the status of the case. 3. Petition is dismissed for default of non-prosecution. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 06, 2009 Pankaj*