Dhan Singh and Another vs Ved Singh and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.—In this case following orders were passed when the matter was fixed:

01.03.2007 "The arguing counsel is stated to be unwell. Adjourned to March 30, 2007 for arguments." 30.03.2007 "The learned Counsel for the appellants prays for further adjournments. Adjourned to August 21, 2007 for arguments." 21.08.2007 "Counsel for the appellants prays for another adjournment. Adjourned to 20.11.2007." 17.01.2008 "On request, adjourned to 7.4.2008." 07.04.2008 "At the written request of learned Counsel for the appellants, adjourned to 21.7.2008." 21.07.2008 "In the interest of justice, adjourned to 23.10.2008." 23.10.2008 "This appeal was filed in August, 2006. Since then the same could not be argued even for motion hearing as the same was being adjourned at the request of counsel for the appellants. Even on the last two dates, no one was present on behalf of the appellants. Today again, request for an adjournment has been made on behalf of counsel for the appellants that he is not well. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 12.11.2008 for arguments. 12.11.2008 "There is a written request for adjournment on behalf of counsel for the appellants. Prayer for adjournment is rejected. However, in the interest of justice, the case is adjourned to 17.11.2008 for arguments." 17.11.2008 "Notice of motion in the application for condonation of delay in filing and refiling of the appeal for 13.01.2009." 13.1.2009 "Counsel for the appellants states that process fee could not be filed due to inadvertence and one more opportunity may be granted. Notice of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal be issued to the respondents for 5.5.2009 on furnishing of necessary requisites by the appellants within a week from today." 05.05.2009 "As per office report, respondent Nos. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 have been served. However, no one appears on their behalf. They are ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. Respondent No. 7 has retired from service. Respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 13 are not residing at the given address. Notice issued to respondent No. 12 has not been received back and respondent No. 14 has expired. Let the unserved respondents be served again for 12.08.2009 on furnishing of their correct addresses by the appellants within two weeks from today. In the meantime, the appellants may take necessary steps to bring on record the LRs of respondent No. 14." 12.08.2009 "As per the office report, notices could not be issued to the unserved respondent Nos. 7, 10, 11 and 13 as their addresses were not filed. Service of respondent No. 12 is reported to be incomplete. Let fresh notices be issued to the unserved respondents for 21.10.2009 on filing the correct addresses." 21.10.2009 "As per office report, notices could not be issued to the unserved respondents as the correct addresses were not filed. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that he will do the needful forthwith. Let notice be issued to the unserved respondents for 4.12.2009, on furnishing of correct addresses." 4.12.2009 "Learned Counsel for the appellants requests for another adjournment to enable him to furnish the correct addresses of unserved respondents. Let fresh notices be issued to the unserved respondents for 15.2.2010 on furnishing of correct addresses." 15.02.2010 "Respondents No. 7, 10, 11 and 13 remain unserved for want of correct addresses. Last opportunity is granted to the learned Counsel for the appellants to take appropriate steps to serve the unserved respondents by furnishing correct addresses or by moving an application for substituted service. Let the needful be done within a period of three weeks from today and thereafter notices be issued to the unserved respondents for 5.4.2010. It is to be noticed that the appeal is of the year 2006 and no further adjournment shall be granted for the aforesaid purpose." 05.04.2010 "On request, adjourned to 22.04.2010."

A perusal of the aforesaid orders reveals that the counsel for the appellants has been dilly dallying the proceedings by either not making the submission or not filing the correct addresses of the unserved respondents. On different occasions the situation has been noticed and opportunity was granted to do the needful. Today also by circulating the adjournment slip an effort has been made to get the matter adjourned on the pretext of filing an application for impleading the LRs of the deceased respondent. Despite the last opportunity granted on 15.2.2010 no efforts have been made to serve the unserved respondents by filing the correct addresses or by moving an application for substituted service. Thus there is no justification to adjourn the matter further.

Dismissed for want of prosecution.