Na v. Na

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

FAO No.683 of 1992 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 31, 2016.

Suraj Bhan ..........APPELLANT (s).

VERSUS

Kanhiya Lal and others ........RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Lakshay Bajaj, Advocate for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the appellant (s).

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) It is submitted by counsel appearing on behalf of appellant that the appellant has been contacted several times but he has not turned up.

It appears that the appellant is not interested in pursuing this appeal. As learned counsel for the appellant pleaded no instructions on his behalf, the appeal is dismissed. However, it may be considered for restoration in the event of application to this effect is filed within six months.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) March 31, 2016.

JUDGE Sachin M.

SACHIN MEHTA 2016.04.07 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH