Shalu Nagpal v. State

ORDER

21.11.2011 It is seen that the case is being adjourned for the last three years for the service of respondent No.2. Notice issued to respondent No.2 have repeatedly returned with the report that there is no person with the name at the given address. Vide order dated 18.08.2009 it was made clear if the petitioner will not be able to procure the attendance of respondent no.2 for 12.10.2009, no further opportunify was given to him in this regard. Despite this order, the petitioner has managed to seek repeated adjournments on one ground or another for the service of respondent No.2. Having seen the record that respondent No.2 was not available and could not be traced, no useful pu{pose will be served by continuing with the present petition. I{ence, the present petition stands dismissed for non prosecution. A'J % /r #2 NOVEMBER 21,201ub Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

$-11 * IN THE IIIGH COI.IRT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 3s30t2008 $HALU NAGPAL Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Shailendra Babbar. Adv. aI STATE ..... Respondent Through Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I/. MEHTA