RSA No.2532 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2532 of 2008 Date of Decision:12.08.2010 Partap Singh & Ors. .... appellants Versus Smt.Piar Kaur & Ors. .....respondents 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 **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): In this case, notice of motion was issued to the respondents on 11.08.2009 and the case came up for further hearing on 06.11.2009 and the following orders was passed: Present: Mr.Anuj Kohli, Advocate **** At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants states that due to inadvertence the process fee could not be filed. He assures the Court that needful shall be done within three days from today. Notice be, thereafter, issued for 2.2.2010. 06.11.2009 -sd- (T.P.S.Mann) JUDGE RSA No.2532 of 2008 2 On 02.02.2010, this Court passed the following order: Present: Mr.Anuj Kohli, Advocate for the appellants **** Respondents have not been found residing at the given address. Learned counsel for the appellants prays for some time to furnish the correct addresses of the respondents. Let the needful be done within a period of three weeks from today and thereafter notices be issued to the unserved respondents for 22.04.2010. 02.02.2010 -sd- (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE On 22.04.2010, the following order was passed: Present: None for the appellants **** Notice could not be issued to the respondents for want of correct address. Last opportunity is granted to the learned counsel for the appellants to furnish the correct addresses of the respondents within a period of three weeks from today and thereafter, notices be issued to the unserved respondents for 12.08.2010. 22.04.2010 -sd- (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE Today, as per the office report, notices could not be issued to the unserved respondents as counsel did not comply with the earlier orders. At this stage, one Mr.Jasbir Singh, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants has pleaded no instructions and has submitted that the appeal be ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn. I find that there is no vakalatnama in favour of Sh.Jasbir Singh, Advocate, RSA No.2532 of 2008 3 authorising him to appear on behalf of appellant. Thus, on his request no such order as prayed can be passed. 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 situation, this Court has no option but to dismiss this appeal. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 12.08.2010 neenu