RSA No.2415 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2415 of 2009 Date of decision:2.8.2010 Noran Singh alias Navrang Singh ....Appellant v. State Bank of India ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. Present: None for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) The present appeal has been directed against a money decree. Vide order dated 27.1.2010, this appeal was dismissed in default, as no one was present on behalf of the appellant. On an application, the aforesaid order was re-called and the appeal was restored to its original number vide order dated 9.3.2010. On that day, learned counsel for the appellant had sought short adjournment to enable him to comply with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the case was ordered to be listed for 7.4.2010. On 7.4.2010, a written request for an adjournment was made and the case was adjourned for today. Today again, a written request for an adjournment has been placed on record requesting for grant of adjournment. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the fact, that no one is present to assist the Court even to make a prayer for an adjournment, the request is declined. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Poonam v.Sumit Tanwar, AIR 2010 SC 1384, has observed that the Court is not obliged to decide the RSA No.2415 of 2009 2 case on merits if necessary assistance is not provided to the Court. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as follows:- “ 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.” In this view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge August 2, 2010 rk