Naresh Khetrepal v. Personal Point Care Ltd

O R D E R %

14.09.2015

¶1On 4.9.2014, counsel for the plaintiff had stated that the case had already been settled with the defendant and some instalments had also been paid to his client. He had however sought an adjournment to enable him to file an application in that regard. However, no such application has been filed by the plaintiff.

¶2The case was passed over on the first call as none was present for the plaintiff. Same is the position even on the second call.

¶3It appears that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the present suit, which is accordingly dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.

HIMA KOHLI, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 sk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 445/2012 NARESH KHETREPAL ..... Plaintiff Through : None. versus PERSONAL POINT CARE LTD ..... Defendant Through : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI