Tvc Sky Shop & Anr. vs M/S Gtm Teleshopping P. Ltd And Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 7482 Del

$~1.

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CS(OS) 1431/2009 and I.A. 9980/2009, 21765/2014,
       TVC SKY SHOP & ANR.                        ..... Plaintiffs
                      Through: Mr. Rohan Kaushal, Advocate

                         versus


       M/S GTM TELESHOPPING P. LTD AND ORS        ..... Defendants
                     Through: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate with
                     Ms. Babita, Advocate for D-1 and D-2.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                         ORDER

       %                 30.09.2015

1.     Vide   order   dated     16.07.2013,    after   the   pleadings     were

completed, issues were framed. Thereafter, an application was filed by

the defendants No.1 and 2 for amendment of the written statement,

which was allowed on 02.12.2013. On 30.04.2014, additional issues

were framed and the parties were directed to file their list of witnesses

within four weeks. The plaintiffs were directed to produce the affidavits

by way of evidence within eight weeks and the case was directed to be

placed before the Joint Registrar on 10.09.2014, for further

proceedings.

2. On 10.09.2014, both sides had sought time to file their lists of

witnesses. Counsel for the plaintiffs had stated that he had filed the

affidavit of one of the witnesses. While directing him to ensure that

the affidavits of other private witnesses are filed within eight weeks,

the case has been listed on 24th and 25th February, 2016 for recording

the plaintiffs' evidence. Thereafter, counsel for the plaintiffs had

stopped appearing in the suit. On 24.02.2015, the Joint Registrar had

waited for the counsel for the plaintiffs/plaintiffs to turn up but none

had appeared and the case was adjourned for the next day, i.e.,

25.02.2015. The position remained the same on the said date also and

none had appeared for the plaintiffs.

3. Today, counsel for the plaintiffs states that repeated efforts have

been made by him to obtain instructions from his clients but they have

declined to respond to him and on one occasion, they had informed

him that they would be taking steps on their own and he need not

appear in the case.

4. It appears that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting

the present suit, which is accordingly dismissed in default and for non-

prosecution alongwith the pending applications.

HIMA KOHLI, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 rkb