Smt. Chinta Devi vs Smt. Vidya Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 4992 HP

    IN    THE      HIGH     COURT       OF     HIMACHAL          PRADESH,            SHIMLA




                                                                      .

                       ON THE 19th DAY OF OCOTBER, 2021
                                  BEFORE
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA





                   REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2008

          Between:





          SMT. CHINTA DEVI,
          W/O LATE SH. BALIBHADAR,
          R/O VILLAGE KASARLA,
          P.O. RATTI NER,
          TEHSIL SADAR,

          DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

                                                                            ....APPELLANT
          (BY MR. VINOD THAKUR,
          ADVOCATE)


          AND


          SMT. VIDYA DEVI,




          W/O SH. PRITU,
          R/O VILLAGE KASARLA,





          P.O. RATTI NER,
          TEHSIL SADAR,
          DISTRICT MANDI H.P.
                                                                         ....RESPONDENT





          (BY MR. G.R.PALSRA,
          ADVOCATE.)

    Whether approved for reporting?.


    This appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:




                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:12:06 :::CIS
                                             2




                                        JUDGMENT

.

Vide order dated 4.12.2019, this Court had granted time to the

learned counsel for the appellant to take steps for bringing on record the

LRs of the respondent, but till date, no steps have been taken. Learned

counsel for the appellant states that despite repeated communications,

appellant is not coming forward to impart instructions and as such, he is

unable to do the needful in terms of order dated 4.12.2019.

2. Record reveals that on 20.12.2016, learned counsel for the

appellant had informed this Court that despite there being written

communication, none has come forward to impart instructions and as

such, matter repeatedly came to be adjourned on the request made by

learned counsel for the appellant.

3. In view of the above, this Court has reason to presume and

believe that appellant is no more interested in prosecuting the case further

and as such, appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim order, if

any, stands vacated.

    19th October, 2021                              (Sandeep Sharma),
         (manjit)                                         Judge