Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(OS) 60/2014 and I.A. 7967/2014
BRAINSMART MEDIA AND ADVERTISING PVT. LTD...... Plaintiff
Through: None
Through: Mr. Nakul Sachdeva, Advocate
JUDGMENT
1. The case was passed over on the first call, as none was present on behalf of the plaintiff. Same is the position even on the second call.
2. It is pertinent to note that none has been appearing for the plaintiff after 29.9.2014.
3. Counsel for the defendant states that he alone had appeared before the Joint Registrar on 14.5.2015. However, due to a typing error, instead of marking his presence for the defendant, the appearance has been shown for the plaintiff. He further states that he had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for seeking rejection of the plaint and despite service being effected directly on the plaintiff, none has appeared on its 2015:DHC:6090 CS(OS) 60/2014 behalf. It appears that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the present suit, which is accordingly dismissed in default as well as for non-prosecution, along with the pending application. HIMA KOHLI, J JULY 31, 2015 mk