A petition is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner fails to provide basic factual details of the dispute and fails to take necessary legal steps to effect service of notice on the respondent.

The Court made the following:

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri Sheri Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri J. Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. I.A.No.1 of 2008 (C.R.P.M.P.No.4808 of 2008) is filed seeking condonation of delay of 126 days in filing the present C.R.P.

3. The present C.R.P, which is still in the ‘S.R’ stage, is filed assailing the Docket Order dated 18.01.2008 in I.A.No.1538/2007 in I.A.No.770/2006 in A.S.No.92/2002.

4. The record in the present C.R.P. would disclose that except the grounds nothing else with regard to the facts is mentioned in the present C.R.P. The impugned Order is also a hand written Docket Order dated 18.01.2008 passed in I.A.No.1538/2007 in I.A.No.770/2006 in A.S.No.92/2002. The record does not disclose neither the nature of the Suit Proceedings nor as to what happened in the Suit that led to filing of the Appeal Suit No.92/2002. The Cause-title mentioned in the C.R.P. does not even indicate the status of the Revision Petitioner herein in the Suit. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, who is also appearing online, is also unable to make any submission with regard to the facts of this case.

5. The docket in the present C.R.P. would disclose that firstly this Court had issued Notice, returnable in four weeks vide Order dated 29.08.2008 in C.M.P.No.4808/2008, which is filed for condonation of delay of 126 days. Thereafter, on 30.01.2012, the Revision Petitioner was once again permitted to take out Personal Notice since the Notice issued on 29.08.2008 has not been returned and therefore, it was unclear whether the Notice has been served on the Respondent or not. On 12.03.2012, this Court had noted that the Personal Notice sent to the Respondent returned unserved with an endorsement “address is incomplete”. Noting the same, this Court had granted an opportunity to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to send the Notice to the complete and correct address of the Respondent.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Notice sent to the Respondent was again returned unserved. It transpires from the docket that despite return for the second time, the Revision Petitioner has not taken any steps to serve the Notice in the C.M.P.No.4808 of 2008 for condonation of delay by filing an Application for effecting service through substituted service. In view of the fact that the case bundle in the present C.R.P does not disclose even the basic facts as regards the nature of dispute between the parties and the outcome in the Suit and also the failure on the part of the Revision Petitioner in taking steps for effecting service on the Respondent even after service got returned on two occasions, this Court is of the view that Petitioner has grossly failed to prosecute the present C.R.P.

7. Having noted the same, I.A.No.1 of 2008 (C.R.P.M.P.No.4808 of 2008) is dismissed for Non-prosecution. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition bearing C.R.P(SR).No.14245 of 2008 is also dismissed for Non-prosecution. No order as to costs.

8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.