Hanumant Chand v. M/S Living Media India Ltd.(India Today Group) & ANR.

$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11020/2022 HANUMANT CHAND .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Fidel Sebastian, Advocate.

versus M/S LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD.(INDIA TODAY GROUP) & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

O R D E R

% 11.08.2025 1.

The record reflects that the matter has been listed on 9 occasions i.e., before the Court on 7 occasions and twice before the Registrar. Out of these, on 6 occasions the Petitioner is either not been present or has sought an adjournment. The details are set out below:

S.No. Date of Order Adjournments / Non-appearances 1.

25.07.2022 Adjournment request by learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2.

06.10.2022 Adjournment request by learned counsel for the Petitioner.

3.

03.04.2024 No appearance.

4.

04.10.2024 No appearance.

5.

17.07.2025 (JR) No appearance.

6.

22.07.2025 (JR) Notice to respondents in terms of order dated 03.04.2025 could not be issued for want of process fee nor there is any appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:47:39

2.

Notice was directed to be issued to the Respondents on 17.03.2023. However, as per the record, Notice could not be served on the Respondents. 3.

This Court had on 03.04.2025 directed fresh Notice to be issued to the Respondents and directed that an Affidavit of service be filed and the matter be listed before the concerned Registrar for completion of service on 22.07.2025.

3.1 The order dated 22.07.2025 of the learned Registrar reflects that the Notice to the Respondents could not be served for want of process fee. There was no appearance on behalf of the Petitioner on that date either. 4.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner today submits that he has already filed the process fee in October 2023.

5.

However, as stated above, the record reflects that the process fee has been lying in objection since October, 2023, as a result, for the last three years, Notice could not be served on the Respondents. 6.

Quite clearly, the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting its case. 7.

The Petition is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution. 8.

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J AUGUST 11, 2025/ ha The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:47:39