Delhi High Court
M/S Trans Acnr Solutions vs M/S Kay Kay Logistics on 29 January, 2015
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 788/2012
Decided on : 29.01.2015
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S TRANS ACNR SOLUTIONS ..... Plaintiff
Through: None
versus
M/S KAY KAY LOGISTICS ..... Defendant
Through: None
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)
1.
The suit has been placed before the court by the Joint Registrar who
had recorded in the order dated 19.1.2015, that none had appeared for
the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to comply with
the orders passed earlier.
2. A perusal of the order sheets reveals that summons were issued in
the suit on 26.3.2012, returnable on 18.9.2012. However, it was recorded
on 18.9.2012, that the process fees had remained under objections.
Another opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to file the process fees
and the suit was adjourned to 25.2.2013. On 25.2.2013, yet again, it was
recorded that summons could not be issued to the defendant for want of
process fees. Last opportunity of one week was granted to the plaintiff to
file the process fees for effecting service on the defendant, returnable on
11.9.2013. On 11.9.2013, the summons sent to the defendant, were
returned unserved at both the addresses and at the request of the counsel
for the plaintiff, dasti summons were issued to the defendant, returnable
on 6.2.2014. On 6.2.2014, as the Joint Registrar was on leave, the suit
was adjourned to 28.3.2014.
3. On 28.3.3014, it was noted that the process fees filed by the
plaintiff was returned under objections. Learned counsel was granted one
more opportunity to serve the defendant, by the three modes and dasti,
returnable on 2.5.2014. On 2.5.2014, it was recorded that the defendant
had remained unserved as the process fees had not been filed by the
plaintiff. The plaintiff was once again directed to take steps to serve the
defendant by all the modes of communication allowed, as per the CPC,
returnable on 8.7.2014.
4. On 8.7.2014, it transpired that the plaintiff had not taken any steps
to make compliances of the previous orders. Another opportunity was
granted to the plaintiff to make compliances and the suit was adjourned to
29.8.2014. On 29.8.2014, again, it was recorded that no steps had been
taken by the plaintiff to make compliances, and the suit was adjourned to
15.12.2014. On 15.12.2014, the Joint Registrar had recorded that as per
the report of the postal authorities, the defendant was not residing at the
given address. Counsel for the plaintiff was directed to take fresh steps
for effecting service on the defendant and the suit was adjourned to
19.1.2015 for further proceedings. On 19.1.2015, none had appeared for
the plaintiff, nor was the process fees filed, along with the fresh address of
the defendant. As a result, the Joint Registrar has placed the file before
the court.
5. None is present for the plaintiff today. It appears that the plaintiff is
not interested in prosecuting the present suit. The same is accordingly
dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JUDGE
JANUARY 29, 2015
mk
