AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member
Learned counsel for the petitioner requests for an adjournment in order to furnish fresh address of the respondent.
The petition is pending since 2017. The perusal of the proceedings dated 11.12.2017, 06.02.2018, 26.03.2018 and the Order dated 02.05.2018 indicate there were some defects as pointed out by the Registry and the opportunities were being constantly given to rectify them. Later on, it appears that notice was issued but the respondent could not be served because of insufficient address. The Order dated 14.07.2022 may be quoted herein below:
As per Office Report, notice sent to the Respondent has been received back with postal remarks “Insufficient Address”. Let fresh address of the Respondent be filed by the learned Counsel for Petitioner within two weeks. Whereafter, the Registry shall issue notice to the Respondent for 25.11.2022.
List on 25.11.2022.
The office report dated 18.11.2022 again indicates that the notice issued to the respondent returned back with the postal remarks “Insufficient Address”. The Order dated 25.11.2022 may be quoted herein below in this regard:
As per Office Report, notice sent to the Respondent has been received back with the postal remarks “insufficient Address”. Let fresh address of the Respondent be given, within three weeks. Thereafter, the Registry shall issue notice to the Respondent, returnable on 27.03.2023.
Again subsequent office report shows that fresh address was not filed by the petitioner as required, so the notice could not be issued to the respondent. The Order dated 27.03.2023 may be quoted herein below:
As per Office Report, notice could not be issued as the Petitioner has not filed fresh address of the Respondent. Let it be filed, within three weeks. Thereafter, the Registry shall issue notice to the Respondent, returnable on 11.08.2023.
The office report further indicates that the notice issued to the respondent returned back with the postal remarks “Insufficient Address”
It appears that due diligence is not being shown on behalf of the petitioner and the matter has not been pursued in right earnest which is not allowing this Commission to proceed further in the matter. It appears to be a clear case of non-prosecution. The petition cannot be kept pending for an indefinite period of time. Hence, the request of the adjournment made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is politely declined.
The instant petition stands dismissed in non-prosecution as such.
However, in the interest of justice, it may be observed that if the petitioner wants to pursue the matter in right earnest with due diligence, he may move appropriate application seeking recall / restoration of the instant Order in accordance with law.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission within three days.