RSA No.1821 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1821 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.11.2010 Gurdeep Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Kailash Rani ......Respondent(s) RSA No.1817 of 2008 (O&M) Gurdeep Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Jugal Kishore ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. K.K. Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This judgment shall dispose off two connected appeals i.e. RSA No.1821 of 2008 and 1817 of 2008. However, the facts are being taken from RSA No.1821 of 2008. In this case, notice of motion was issued on 19.9.2008 and the Lower court record was also requisitioned. On 30.3.2010, it was brought to the notice of this Court that in fact this appeal has been filed against a dead person as respondent- Kailash Rani had died in the year 2004 and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant in this case is a Non Resident Indian. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant sought a short adjournment to enable him to comply with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 10 CPC according to which this Court shall demand such security for RSA No.1821 of 2008 (O&M) 2 the costs of the appeal or of the original suit, or of both and where the appellant is a Non Resident Indian and such security is not furnished within such time as the Court orders, the Court shall reject the appeal. The appellant filed an application for furnishing security as per Order 41 Rule 10 CPC which came up for hearing on 13.5.2010. On that day the following order was passed: “On the first call counsel for the applicant- appellants was present, however, a pass over was given. On second call no one was present on behalf of the parties. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 17.8.2010.” It may also be pointed out that on 17.8.2010, Mr. Tarunveer Vashisth, Advocate had appeared for the appellant in this case and has filed fresh power of attorney and had stated that Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Sr. Advocate has withdrawn from the case and Mr. Amit Singh, who was the assisting counsel, had become a Govt. counsel and therefore, he will assist the Court on behalf of the appellant. Today, Mr. Vashisth is not present on behalf of the appellant. However, one Mr. K.K. Garg, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant and has sought a short adjournment on the basis of a memo of appearance. However, on the asking of the Court Mr. Garg could not show any power of attorney/Authorisation in his favour executed by the appellant. Keeping in view the conduct of the appellant that the appeal has been filed against a dead person and the matter is not being argued, the aforesaid prayer is declined. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1384 has observed RSA No.1821 of 2008 (O&M) 3 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 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 view of the aforesaid authoritatively pronouncement of this Court and seeing the conduct of the appellant, this Court is forced to dismiss these appeals with costs which are assessed at Rs.20,000/- in each appeal. Let the aforesaid costs be deposited by the appellant within one month from today with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority. In case the aforesaid costs are not deposited within the time fixed, the same shall be recoverable by the Punjab State Legal Services Authority as arrears of land revenue. Let a compliance report be submitted. November 25, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE RSA No.1821 of 2008 (O&M) 4