BHARTHA Vs. SATBIR MAJOR
LAWS(P&H)-2011-2-202
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on February 11,2011

Bhartha Appellant
VERSUS
Satbir Major Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This case was dismissed in default vide order dated 19.11.2010.
(2.) CM No. 14200-C of 2010 was filed through Sh. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for restoration of the appeal by making the following averments: 2. That the above mentioned appeal was filed through late Shri Jatinder Kumar Sharma and Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Advocates. Shri Jatinder Kumar Sharma appeared for the Applicants, when the appeal was admitted on 14.5.1985 by this Hon'ble court. Thereafter, the appeal remained pending for hearing. The appeal was listed at Item No. 337 on the Board of Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Yadav. At that time, the applicants took the brief from the Office of Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma and entrusted the same to Shri J.L. Malhotra, Advocate, with the instructions that the appeal is to be argued by Mr. V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate. Accordingly, the memo of appearance was filed on 30.11.2007 in the Registry. The appeal remained pending and was on the Board of many Hon'ble Judges and the counsel had been prosecuting the appeal diligently. The appeal was on the Board of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Garg on 6.1.2010 and thereafter again added on 28.6.2010 at Item no. 354 and remained pending for hearing. The applicants' counsel- Mr. J.L. Malhotra and Mr. V.K. Jain had been closely watching the progress of the case. In the meantime, Mr. V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, shifted to Delhi in order to practice in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 1.11.2010. The brief of the case remained with Mr. J.L. Malhotra, Advocate, for arguments.
(3.) That the matter came up for hearing on 19.11.2010 before Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Garg. The applicants' counsel Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma could not appear, as he was not having any brief. Mr. J.L. Malhotra, Advocate could not appear on that day, as he was not feeling well. Mr. J.K. Bhatti, Advocate had made a request before the Hon'ble court for an adjournment, which was not rightly granted as Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, was having the Power of Attorney.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.