AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Sodhi, J.—This is an old case pending at the motion stage for the last more than two years. When it came up for hearing on September 23, 2002 no one was present on behalf of the Department and since the Court''s direction had not been complied with the case was dismissed for non prosecution and the following order was passed:
"Present: None for the petitioner Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
When this case came up for hearing on May 16, 2002, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 pointed out that the annexures attached with the petition do not relate to the case of the assessee. Counsel for the petitioner was directed to furnish the correct and certified copies of the annexures pertaining to the assessee to its counsel within one week from that date. That has not been done so far. Today, no one is present on behalf of the petitioner. Dismissed for non-prosecution."
Thereafter on an application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the case was restored to its original number and ordered to be heard. Today again no one is present on behalf of the Department. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee complains that the order dated May 16, 2002 directing the Department to supply the correct copies of the annexures to the counsel has not been complied with till today. Since the Court''s directions are not been carried out and the counsel for the Department chooses to absent himself at the time of hearing, we are left with no other choice but to dismiss this case again for non-presecution.
Dismissed for non-prosecution.