Manoj Kumar Sharma v. Suresh Chand Sharma & Others

1. The present petition has been placed before the court by the Joint Registrar who has recorded in the order dated 19.5.2015 that none has been appearing for the Judgment Debtors for the past two dates, nor have any steps been taken by him, in terms of the earlier orders.

2. Vide order dated 14.10.2014, fresh notice was directed to be issued to the Judgment Debtors No.2 & 4, returnable on 3.12.2014. On 3.12.2014, it was noted that the Decree Holder had failed to file the process fee. As a result, further time was granted to the Decree Holder to file the process fee for effecting service on the Judgment Debtors No.2 & 4, returnable on 5.2.2015. On 5.2.2015, none had appeared for the Decree Holder. Service in respect of the Judgment 2015:DHC:4634 Ex.P.No.281/2013 Debtors No.2 & 4 was awaited. As a result, fresh notice was directed to be issued against the said Judgment Debtors, returnable on 13.3.2015. On 13.3.2015, again, none had appeared on behalf of the Decree Holder and nor had any steps been taken by his counsel for effecting service on the Judgment Debtors No.2 & 4. Despite the same, no adverse orders were passed and the Decree Holder was directed to file the process fees for effecting service on the Judgment Debtors No.2 & 4, returnable on 19.5.2015. On 19.5.2015, yet again, none had appeared on behalf of the Decree Holder, nor had any steps been taken for effecting service on the Judgment Debtors No.2 & 4.

3. None is present on behalf of the Decree Holder even today. It appears that the Decree Holder is not interested in prosecuting the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. HIMA KOHLI, J MAY 22, 2015 mk