c12e07d519f0e385b5a1d25bb591ad3104f61701a15027d6aa5ddbad29b0c947

Delhi High Court · 02 Aug 2011 · 2011:DHC:18200
Rafique Bhir, J
W.P.(C) No.3947/2011
2011:DHC:18200
civil petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's failure to appear or instruct counsel, emphasizing the duty of counsel to inform the court directly about withdrawal.

Full Text
Translation output
a, 33# o/o O2.O8.2OLL
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr.Pramod Gupta, Advocate for the respondent/llFT.
+W.P.(C) No.3947/2011 and C.M.No.8192/2O11 t<
There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner.
;
Counsel appearing'for the respondent submits that he had a word with Mr.Sameer Nandwani, counsel representing the petitioner and was told by him that he would not be appearing in this matter any more since no instructions were given to him by the petitioner. The absence of Mr.Nandwani is not appreciated by this Court. Once he has been apdearing for the petitioner, he should have minimum courtesy to have remained present in the court so as to apprise this fact to the court instead of telling the same to the counsel representingihe respondent. The absence of Mr.Sameer Nandwani, Advocate is highly deprecated.
Since nobody has been appearing for the petitioner, the petition is dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.
A copy of this order be sent by the Registry to
.,i
{ ij
Mr.Sameer Nandwani, Advocate.
AUGUST 02,?OLL dc
A
IA rarLaffirqBHIR, J
2011:DHC:18200
JUDGMENT