R.S.A. No. 4195 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4195 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.9.2010. Mohan Lal ....Appellant Versus Lakhan Singh (deceased) through LRs ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present:- Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J Vide order dated 15.3.2010 legal representatives of Lakhan Singh were brought on record and notice was issued to them for 30.4.2010. On 30.4.2010 the office reported that notices could not be issued to the aforesaid newly added respondents for want of process fee. On 30.4.2010 this Court ordered that needful be done within a period of three weeks and notices be issued to the respondents for 10.8.2010. On 10.8.2010 the Court noticed that notices to the newly added respondents could not be issued as necessary requisite were not furnished and keeping in view the facts and circumstances one final opportunity was granted to the appellant to comply with the order dated 30.4.2010 and the case was adjourned for today. As per office report notices issued to the newly added respondents for 22.9.2010 have not been received back served or otherwise. However, from the note of the registry on the file I find that three sets of notices were issued only on 17.9.2010 on which a report was sought by the office regarding service and the office has further given the report on 20.9.2010 that the aforesaid notices have not been received back served or otherwise. On the basis of aforesaid report, it has been submitted before this Court to the effect that notices issued to the newly added respondents have not been received back served or otherwise. R.S.A. No. 4195 of 2006 2 From the record I find that the application for furnishing of necessary requisite was given to the Registry by learned counsel for the appellant only on 16.9.2010 which was allowed by the concerned Assistant Registrar. Thereafter, notices were prepared on 17.9.2010 and handed over to dispatch clerk on 18.9.2010. The notices were dispatched by the dispatch clerk only on 20.9.2010 whereas the concerned clerk submitted report on the case file on 20.9.2010 to the effect that notices issued to respondents have not been received back served or otherwise. Since the notices were dispatched only on 20.9.2010 there could not have been any occasion for the concerned Clerk to give the aforesaid report regarding service on the file. From the aforesaid facts it is crystal clear that the necessary requisite were accepted by the office from the counsel belatedly and to help him the notices were prepared and shown to be issued and just to cover up their negligence and delay, a false report has been submitted before this Court. Let show cause notice be issued to the concerned Officer/Official of the Registry to explain their conduct as to why suitable action be not taken against them. For the aforesaid reasons in view of the order dated 10.8.2010 this Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) 22.9.2010. JUDGE Reema