ROOHI THAKUR vs STATE OF HARYANA

1. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition, inter alia, for setting aside order dated 11.02.2025, Annexure P-3, passed by respondent No.2 whereby an appeal filed by her under Section 19 of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, (for short, ‘the 1975 Act’), has been dismissed in default. 2. On an advance notice, Ms. Radhika Mehta, Advocate, who is assisting Mr. Randeep S.Rai, Senior Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of private respondent No.5. Mr. Rai has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. R.Srinavasan, BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA 2026.05.30 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh. (2000) 3 SCC 242, and has referred to paragraph No.18 whereof, which is reproduced hereunder:- “18. We only intend to invoke the spirit of the principle behind the above dictum in support of our view that every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a lis between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, the court or