Delhi High Court
M/S Hcl Infosystems Ltd vs Tgm Techno School & Anr on 14 May, 2015
$~16.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 256/2014
M/S HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. N.L. Singh, Advocate
versus
TGM TECHNO SCHOOL & ANR ..... Defendants
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 14.05.2015
1. The suit has been placed before the Court by the Joint Registrar,
who has recorded in the order dated 12.03.2015, that the plaintiff has
failed to take any steps to effect service on the defendants and nor
has anyone appeared for the plaintiff.
2. A perusal of the order sheets reveals that summons were issued
in the suit on 29.01.2014, returnable on 15.05.2014. It was recorded
on 15.05.2014 that both the defendants were unserved and fresh
summons were directed to be issued to the defendants by all modes,
returnable on 21.08.2014. However, the plaintiff had failed to file the
process fee. On 21.08.2014, it was again recorded that both the
defendants had remained unserved and fresh summons were directed
to be issued to them, returnable on 07.11.2014. On 07.11.2014, as
per the office report, both the defendants had remained unserved with
the report that the premises was vacated three years ago. The
plaintiff was directed to furnish the fresh addresses of the defendants
and file the process fee for summons to be issued to them, returnable
on 19.01.2015. On 19.01.2015, none had appeared for the plaintiff
and the Joint Registrar had recorded that steps had not been taken by
the plaintiff in terms of the last order. However, another opportunity
was granted to the plaintiff to take fresh steps for effecting service on
the defendants and the case was adjourned to 12.03.2015. On
12.03.2015, yet again, none had appeared for the plaintiff and nor had
any steps been taken to furnish the fresh addresses of the defendants
alongwith the process fee. As a result, the case was directed to be
placed before the Court.
3. From the manner in which the plaintiff has been prosecuting the
present suit, it is apparent that it is not serious. The present suit has
remained at the stage of service ever since 29.01.2014. Even today,
counsel for the plaintiff seeks further time to enable him to take steps
to file an application for effecting substituted service on the
defendants. If the learned counsel and the plaintiff were serious, the
said application should have been filed by now, particularly, when the
Court was on leave on 15.04.2015 and the matter was adjourned for
today. Pertinently, counsel for the plaintiff was present on the said
date and was well aware of the consequences of non-compliances of
the earlier orders.
4. In view of the above, the suit is dismissed for non-prosecution.
HIMA KOHLI, J
MAY 14, 2015
rkb/mk
