IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2372 OF 2002

RANBIR SINGH DHANJAL .......APPELLANT(S)  

Versus

ARUNA GUPTA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

This appeal of the year 2002 has been filed by the appellant in-person, who is

the former husband of respondent  No.1.   The claim in the appeal is that  a sum of

rupees twenty two lakhs and odd, which the appellant claims he has spent on his wife,

should  be  defrayed  by  her  to  him.   The  plaintiff  appellant  claimed  reliefs  in  the

following term:

“Decree for specific performance of 1/4th share in the

property Unit  No.B-1-974,  out  of property measuring 2400 sq.

yds.  situated  at  Rajpura  Road,  Ludhiana  and/or  in  the

alternative for recovery of Rs.22,05,000/-”

2. The trial Court, in its judgment dated 18th September 1999, partly decreed

the suit inasmuch that a decree for Rs.15,29,417.15p. was granted, though the suit qua

the  claim for  specific  performance  was  dismissed.   The  appellate  Court,  however,

allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit in toto.  This order has been affirmed by the

Division Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal. The said orders have been challenged in this

appeal by special leave.

......2.

- 2 -

3. In the memo of parties, the appellant has given his address as under:

Ranbir Singh Dhanjal son of Late S. Tarlochan Singh Resident of Canada, at present residing at 205, Sector 36A, Chandigarh.

It would be clear from the memo that the address relating to Canada is indeterminate

and the efforts to serve the appellant on his address in Chandigarh have remained

futile.  The office report shows that the notices sent have been received unserved with

the remarks 'addressee left'.   

4. In this view of the matter, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal in

default.  No costs.

  ...........................J.    ( HARJIT SINGH BEDI )

New Delhi;    ...........................J. April 30, 2009.           ( B. SUDERSHAN REDDY )