Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2628 (PNJ)

Khushwant Singh v. Vineet Malik

2010-09-13

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2010
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg J. (Oral):- A written request for adjournment has been made. No one is present to press the prayer of written request for adjournment. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted before this Court that since the filing of this appeal, this is 29th adjournment sought by the appellant, in this appeal which is against a money decree. The following orders were passed in this case: Present: Mr. P.S. Chauhan, Advocate for Mr.B.S.Bedi, Advocate. A request is made on behalf of counsel for the appellant for adjournment. Adjourned to 20.07.2006. -sd/- (Ranjit Singh) Judge July 6, 2006 It is 4.00 p.m.now. In the interest of justice, the hearing of the case is deferred to 28.11.2006. -sd/- (Mahesh Grover) Judge 20.07.2006 Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate On request, adjourned to 15.01.2007. -sd/- (Kiran Anand Lall) Judge November 28, 2006 Present: As above On request, adj.to 18.01.2007. -sd/- (S.S. Saron) Judge 15.01.2007 Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant Learned counsel requests adjournment so as to enable him to place on record copy of the agreement. List again on 17.03.2007. -sd/- (Kiran Anand Lall) Judge January 18, 2007 Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant On behalf of the appellant a date is requested for arguments. Put up for hearing on 21st May, 2007. -sd/- (M.M. Aggarwal) Judge March 17, 2007 Present: None for the appellant On 18.01.2007, learned counsel for the appellant requested for an adjournment so as to place on record copy of the agreement. The needful has not been done so far. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 11.10.2007. -sd/- May 21, 2007 (T.P.S.Mann) Judge Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant Learned counsel for the appellant prays for a short adjournment so as to place on record copy of the agreement. Adjourned to 05.11.2007. Needful be done before the next date of hearing. -sd/- October 11, 2007 (T.P.S. Mann) Judge Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate CM No.10031-C of 2007 Application is allowed. Annexures A-2 and A-3 are taken on record. RSA No.287 of 2006 As the case was shown in the supplementary list issued today, hearing is adjourned to 13.11.2007. -sd/- (T.P.S. Mann) Judge November 05, 2007 Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. B.S. Bedi, Advocate CM No.10031-C of 2007 Application is allowed. Annexures A-2 and A-3 are taken on record. RSA No.287 of 2006 As the case was shown in the supplementary list issued today, hearing is adjourned to 13.11.2007. -sd/- (T.P.S. Mann) Judge November 05, 2007 Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to agreement dated 13.8.1986, as per which Vineet Malik was required to discharge all the claims/rights of other shareholders in Friends Flour Mills (P) Limited and pay them for their shares, rights and interests. When the plaintiff had failed to establish that he had performed that part of the agreement dated 13.8.1986, he could not insist upon the defendant to perform his part of the agreement, requiring him (defendant) to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 4,80,000/-. Notice of motion 11.3.2008. Execution of the impugned decree shall remain stayed, subject to the appellant furnishing a band guarantee for the amount involved to the satisfaction of the Executing Court. At this stage, Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. -sd/- (T.P.S. Mann) November 13,2007 Judge Present: None for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate,for the respondent. There is a written request for an adjournment made by the learned counsel for the respondent with no objection from the learned counsel for the appellant. Adjourned to 13.5.2008. -sd/- March 11,2008 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge Present: Mr. Pardeep Singh, Advcoate, for Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. A request for an adjournment has been made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appelant. Adjourned to 25.8.2008. -sd/- May 13, 2008 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge CM No. 7946 of 2008 in RSA No. 287 of 2006 Present: Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advcoate for the applicant- respondent. Notice of this application to the counsel for non-applicant appellant. Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of nonapplicant- appellant and prays for time to file reply. List again on 3.11.2008. -sd/- August 25, 2008 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge Present: Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate for the applicant-appellant Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the non-applicant-appellant. Reply to the Civil Misc. application has been filed in the Court today and the same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been handed over to the learned counsel for the applicant-respondent. Adjourned to 20.1.2009 for arguments. B.R. Gupta, Advocate for the applicant-appellant Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the non-applicant-appellant. Reply to the Civil Misc. application has been filed in the Court today and the same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been handed over to the learned counsel for the applicant-respondent. Adjourned to 20.1.2009 for arguments. -sd/- November 03, 2008 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge CM No. 7946-C of 2008 in RSA No. 287 of 2006 Present: None for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Gupta and Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocates, for the respondent. Written request for an adjournment has been made on behalf of counsel for the appellant to which learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. Adjourned to 23.4.2009. -sd/- January 20, 2009 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge CM No. 7946-C of 2008 in RSA No. 287 of 2006 Present: None for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. There is written request for adjournment made by counsel for the appellant In the interest of justice, adjourned to 29.4.2009. To be shown in the urgent list. -sd/- April 23, 2009 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks an adjournment on the ground that he is not feeling well. Adjourned to 5.5.2009. To be shown in the urgent list. -sd/- April 29, 2009 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. At joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, adjourned to 18.5.2009 for arguments To be shown in the urgent list. -sd/- 5.5.2009 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant states that he is not ready with arguments and prays for time. Adjourned to 25.5.2009 for arguments. To be shown in the urgent list. -sd/- 18.5.2009 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge CM No. 7946-C of 2008 in RSA No. 287 of 2006 Present: Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate, for Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. In this case, on 20.01.2009, 23.4.2009, 29.4.2009 and 18.5.2009, the counsel for the appellant had sought adjournments to make submissions. Again today also, a request for an adjournment has been made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant. J.S. Thind, Advocate, for Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. In this case, on 20.01.2009, 23.4.2009, 29.4.2009 and 18.5.2009, the counsel for the appellant had sought adjournments to make submissions. Again today also, a request for an adjournment has been made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the file shows that the counsel for the appellant has been taking adjournment on one pretext or the other. However, in the interest of justice, one last opportunity is granted to the learned counsel for the appellant subjec to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs, to be deposited with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh, and receipt thereof be placed on record of this case on the next date of hearing. Adjourned to 21.8.2009 for arguments. -sd/- May 25,2009 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record receipt regarding payment of costs in terms of the last order. Learned counsel for the respondent requests for an adjournment. List again on 8.10.2009 -sd/- August 21,2009 (Sabina) Judge CM No. 594-C of 2006 and RSA No. 287 of 2006 Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file reply to CM. No. 594-C of 2006. List again on 7.12.2009. -sd/- 8.10.2009 (Sabina) Judge CM No. 594-C of 2006 and RSA No. 287 of 2006 Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. Reply to the application has been filed. Lower court’s record be summoned. List again on 16.2.2010. -sd/- December 7, 2009 (Sabina) Judge Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for some time to inspect the records which have been recieved. Adjourned to 28.4.2010. -sd/- 16.2.2010 (Mahesh Grover) Judge Present: None On written request circulated by the learned counsel for the appellant, adjourned to 14.7.2010. -sd/- 28.4.2010 (Mahesh Grover) Judge Present: Nemo for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. Adjourned to 4.8.2010 for arguments at the written request of learned counsel for the appellant. -sd/- July 14, 2010 (Mohinder Singh Sullar) Judge Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. -sd/- 28.4.2010 (Mahesh Grover) Judge Present: Nemo for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. Adjourned to 4.8.2010 for arguments at the written request of learned counsel for the appellant. -sd/- July 14, 2010 (Mohinder Singh Sullar) Judge Present: Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. Although no cogent ground for adjournment is made out, however, in the interest of justice, last opportunity is granted to the appellant to argue the matter. Adjourned to 13.9.2010 for arguments at the request of learned counsel for the appellant. -sd/- August 4, 2010 (Mohinder Singh Sullar) Judge 3. In this view of the matter, I find no justification for further adjournment. The prayer is declined. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Poonam vs. Sumit Tanwar [2010(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1341] : (AIR 2010 SC 1384) has observed as under: “In absence of proper assistance to Court by the lawyer, there is no obligation on the part of the Court to decide the case, for the simple reason that unless the lawyer renders the proper assistance to the Court, the Court is not able to decide the case. It is not for the Court itself to decide the controversy. The counsel cannot just raise the issues in his petition and leave it to the Court to give its decision on those points after going through the record and determining the correctness thereof. It is not for the Court itself to find out what the points for determination can be and then proceed to give a decision on those points. In case counsel for the party is not able to render any assistance, the Court may decline to entertain the petition” Dismissed for non-prosecution. ----------------