Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Manoj Kumar Sharma vs Suresh Chand Sharma & Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 4152 Del

Citation : 2015 Latest Caselaw 4152 Del
Judgement Date : 22 May, 2015

Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar Sharma vs Suresh Chand Sharma & Others on 22 May, 2015
Author: Hima Kohli
$~31.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     EX.P. 281/2013
      MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA                     ..... Decree Holder
                    Through: None

                       versus


      SURESH CHAND SHARMA & OTHERS. ..... Judgement Debtors
                    Through: None

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                       ORDER

% 22.05.2015

1. The present petition has been placed before the court by the

Joint Registrar who has recorded in the order dated 19.5.2015 that

none has been appearing for the Judgment Debtors for the past two

dates, nor have any steps been taken by him, in terms of the earlier

orders.

2. Vide order dated 14.10.2014, fresh notice was directed to be

issued to the Judgment Debtors No.2 & 4, returnable on 3.12.2014.

On 3.12.2014, it was noted that the Decree Holder had failed to file

the process fee. As a result, further time was granted to the Decree

Holder to file the process fee for effecting service on the Judgment

Debtors No.2 & 4, returnable on 5.2.2015. On 5.2.2015, none had

appeared for the Decree Holder. Service in respect of the Judgment

Debtors No.2 & 4 was awaited. As a result, fresh notice was directed

to be issued against the said Judgment Debtors, returnable on

13.3.2015. On 13.3.2015, again, none had appeared on behalf of the

Decree Holder and nor had any steps been taken by his counsel for

effecting service on the Judgment Debtors No.2 & 4. Despite the

same, no adverse orders were passed and the Decree Holder was

directed to file the process fees for effecting service on the Judgment

Debtors No.2 & 4, returnable on 19.5.2015. On 19.5.2015, yet again,

none had appeared on behalf of the Decree Holder, nor had any steps

been taken for effecting service on the Judgment Debtors No.2 & 4.

3. None is present on behalf of the Decree Holder even today. It

appears that the Decree Holder is not interested in prosecuting the

present petition, which is accordingly dismissed in default and for

non-prosecution.

HIMA KOHLI, J MAY 22, 2015 mk

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter