1. When the petition is called out and taken up for hearing, learned advocate for the petitioner is not present. Learned advocates for the respondents are also not present. Cause-List shows that the process of rule has not been served qua respondents No.3, 7, 10, 16, 18, 22, 29, 31,34, 41 and 44 and process of rule has not been received back qua respondents No.6, 12, 15, 19, 30, 34, 40 and 47. Thus, it appears that due to inaction on the part of the petitioner in taking steps to ascertain as to whether the address of the unserved respondents i.e. those qua whom the process of rule has remained unserved are correct and complete or not.
2. It has also not come on record that after the order dated 8.8.2011, admitting the petition was passed, the petitioner did not pay the process fee until 24.8.2011 and therefore, the order had to be passed extending the returnable date and thereafter, the process has remained unserved qua the above-mentioned respondents. It appears that the petitioner is neglecting the proceedings.
3. As a last chance, the proceedings are adjourned. If the petitioner does not take steps to ensure that the addresses mentioned in the petition are correct or that correct, complete and present address of all the respondents are supplied, then the petition qua the said respondents stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
S.O.
to 26.7.2012 (K.M.
Thaker, J.) Bharat* Top