IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.9534 of 1987 Date of Decision:- 25.03.2009 The Gaziana Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Limited, V. & P.O., Gaziana Dist.Faridkot ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- None for the parties. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) The writ petition was admitted on 17.12.1987. As service was not effected on respondent No.3 the case was put up before the Court on 25.9.2007 when the counsel for the petitioner was granted two months' time to submit the correct address to effect service on unserved respondent No.3. Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing on 21.12.2007 when no one had put in appearance. However, the Registry had put up a note that the counsel for the petitioner has not given the correct address of respondent No.3 nor has any steps had been taken to effect service upon respondent No.3. In the interest of justice, again one opportunity was granted to the petitioner to do the needful within three weeks. Registry was directed to inform the counsel for the petitioner about the order passed. Accordingly, the counsel for the petitioner was informed. The matter thereafter came up for hearing on 28.3.2008 when again no one had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. What was required of the petitioner was to furnish correct address of respondent No.3 to effect service upon him but the same was not furnished and thereafter, notice was issued to the petitioner for 12.8.2008. C.W.P.No.9534 of 1987 -2- On 12.8.2008, Mr.Vishal Goel, Advocate, had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and the case was adjourned to 17.9.2008. On 17.9.2008, request on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner was made to file correct address of respondent No.3. The Court granted him fortnight's time to do the needful and on his so doing, fresh notice was ordered to be issued to effect service upon respondent No.3 for 17.12.2008. On 17.12.2008, the Registry reported to the Court that notice could not be issued to respondent No.3 as the counsel did not file the correct address. Counsel for the petitioner was granted six weeks' time to do the needful. On his doing so, fresh notice was ordered to be issued to respondent No.3 for 25.3.2009. Today, the case has been called twice but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. As per the report of the Registry, letter was issued to the counsel for the petitioner along with the copy of the order passed by this Court on 17.12.2008 which has been received back duly served on the counsel for the petitioner. Still, no steps were taken by the petitioner to furnish correct address of unserved respondent No.3. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter. Dismissed for non-prosecution. At this stage, Mr.Chetan Salathia, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and states that he has been unable to contact his client and, therefore, has not been able to get the required correct address of respondent No.3. This further fortifies that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. March 25, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE