CR No. 3136 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3136 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : 04.10.2010 Sukhdev Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS M/s Maghi Ram Charan Dass and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- None MAHESH GROVER, J On 12.5.2010 while issuing notice of motion following order was passed:- “Learned counsel has argued that the main reason for dismissal of the application for amendment was that the petitioner was interested in delaying the proceedings. However, that assumption is clearly erroneous as the petitioner does not want to lead any further evidence but only wants to clarify the real name of defendant no.1. Notice of motion for 17.5.2010. Learned counsel prays for permission to serve the respondents through their counsel before the trial Court by way of dasti process. Allowed. Dasti only.” On 17.5.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for an opportunity to serve the respondents through their counsel in the Trial CR No. 3136 of 2010(O&M) 2 Court by way of dasti process and the same was granted and the matter was adjourned to 25.5.2010. On 25.5.2010, it was noticed that respondents remain unserved as no one had turned up to collect the dasti notices and again an opportunity was granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to do the needful and the matter was posted for 27.7.2010. On the last date of hearing i.e. 27.7.2010, one last opportunity was granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to serve the respondents through dasti process. Office report shows that respondents still remain unserved as no one has turned up to collect the dasti notices. In view of above, there is no justification in adjourning the case for another date when the petitioner himself is not serious in prosecuting his petition. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. October 04, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge