CR-1793-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (120) CR-1793-2025 Date of decision: - 28.04.2025 Richa Gupta ....Petitioner Versus Shashi Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 7. Mr. Harsh Mehla, Advocate for respondents No.23 and 24. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. On 24.03.2025, this Court was pleased to pass the following order: - “Present: Mr. Rahul Singla, Advocate and Ms. Priyanka Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prayer in the present revision petition is for setting aside of the order dated 28.11.2023 (Annexure P-7) vide which the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order. It is submitted that there is no injunction in favour of the petitioner and thus, delay in the proceedings would primarily harm the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to compensate the contesting NARESH KUMAR 2025.04.29 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CR-1793-2025 -2- respondents with adequate cost. Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 6, 20, 21, 23 and 24 for 08.04.2025. Till the next date of hearing, the final order may not be passed. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to serve the abovesaid respondents through dasti process as well as through the counsel appearing before the trial Court. The petitioner would bring an amount of Rs.30,000/- as cost to the abovesaid respondents. To be shown in the urgent list.” 2. On 08.04.2025, the following order was passed by this Court:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the order dated 24.03.2025 and has prayed that more time be granted to comply with the said order. Learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 7 has submitted that in the said circumstances, the stay order be vacated. Adjourned to 28.04.2025. Interim order dated 24.03.2025 stands vacated. To be shown in the urgent list.” 3. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 7 has submitted that even today, the order dated 24.03.2025 has not been complied with. 4. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Dismissed for non-prosecution. 6. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to revive the same after complying with the earlier orders. ( VIKAS BAHL ) April 28, 2025 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NARESH KUMAR 2025.04.29 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement