Union Bank Of India v. Mrs. Narinder Kaur Chadha

RSA No.307 of 1999 (O&M) {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.307 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision:01.03.2018 Union Bank of India ... Appellant Vs.

Narinder Kaur Chadha and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- None.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) This Court, on 22.01.2018 passed the following order:- "Present: None.

As per office report, fresh notice could not be issued to respondent Nos.2 to 6 as the learned counsel has not filed the correct address.

Respondent Nos.4 and 6, who are defendant Nos.2 and 4 before the Court below, were proceeded ex parte and accordingly, in view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 14 and sub-Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, service upon respondent Nos.4 and 6 is dispensed with.

On filing of correct address of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5, let fresh notice be issued to them for 01.03.2018, failing which, Savita 2018.03.06 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

RSA No.307 of 1999 (O&M) {2} the appeal qua respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 shall be dismissed. The Registry is directed to inform Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate representing the appellant for compliance of the order." Office report reads as under:- R.No.1 - Represented by counsel.

R.No.4, 6 - Service dispensed with vide order dated 22.1.2018 Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate has been informed for compliance of order dated 22.1.2018.

Fresh notices could not be issued to respondents no.2, 3 and 5 as correct addresses not filed by counsel so far." Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. It appears that appellant is not interested in pursuing the matter. Dismissed for non-prosecution.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE March 01, 2018 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Savita 2018.03.06 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh