Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HIMA KOHLI, J.
Naveen Chand Lal Chand Bhatia – Plaintiff
Versus
Khushbu Naveen Chand Bhatia & Another – Defendants
C.S. (OS) No. 1182 of 2012 & I.A. No. 7866 of 2012
Decided On : 30.6.2015
Dismissal - Partition and Permanent Injunction - Non-prosecution
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against his son and daughter regarding an immovable property. Despite being served, the defendants did not file their written statements. The plaintiff failed to comply with the court's directions and did not take any steps to prosecute the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had stopped contacting his counsel, and a notice of discharge was issued to the plaintiff. As the plaintiff showed no interest in prosecuting the suit, it was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.
Issues: Non-compliance with court directions, lack of interest in prosecuting the suit
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders and the lack of interest in pursuing the suit, leading to dismissal for non-prosecution.
Final Decision: The suit for partition and permanent injunction was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution, along with the pending application. The interim order dated 30.6.2012 was vacated, and the file was consigned to the Record Room.
1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit for partition and permanent injunction against his son and daughter in respect of an immovable property situated in New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.
2. A perusal of the order sheets reveals that though the defendants were duly served with the summons in the suit, they have not filed their written statements. On 17.9.2014, the plaintiff was directed to file the list of witnesses along with the affidavit by way of evidence. However, the plaintiff did not make any compliances.
3. Vide order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the learned Joint Registrar, costs of Rs. 3,000/- was imposed on the plaintiff and one more opportunity was granted to file the affidavit by way of evidence. Despite the said order, the plaintiff did not take any steps. On 9.4.2015, none had appeared for the plaintiff and as a result, the suit was directed to be placed before the Court.
4. Today, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that his client has stopped contacting him for a long while and as a result, a notice of discharge dated 23.6.2015 was issued to the plaintiff through speed post and courier. A copy of the aforesaid notice dated 23.6.2015 along with proof of dispatch by courier and speed post is handed over by the counsel for the plaintiff and is taken on record.
5. It appears that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the present suit, which is accordingly dismissed in default and for non-prosecution, along with the pending application.
6. The interim order dated 30.6.2012 stands vacated.
7. File be consigned to Record Room.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
