245 JAGTAR SINGH & ANR STATE OF HARYANA & TRILOK SINGH AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS CHANNO DEVI STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS JOGINDER SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS TRILOK SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS CORAM: Present: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 1. LPA-1952 JAGTAR SINGH & ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS 2. LPA-1953 TRILOK SINGH AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 3. LPA-1954 CHANNO DEVI V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 4. LPA-1957 JOGINDER SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 5. LPA-1958 TRILOK SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA None for the appellant(s). Ms. Anu Pal, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate for respondent Nos.7 to 10, 13 and 14. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 23.04.2026 1952-2014 (O&M) ........Appellants ........Respondents 1953-2014 (O&M) ........Appellants ........Respondents 1954-2014 (O&M) ........Appellant ........Respondents 1957-2014 (O&M) ........Appellants ........Respondents 1958-2014 (O&M) ........Appellants ........Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI DEEPAK MANCHANDA Ms. Anu Pal, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate or respondent Nos.7 to 10, 13 and 14. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI SAPNA GOYAL 2026.04.24 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1952-2014 (O&M) and other connected cases -2- *** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1. Present bunch of appeals, the details of which are mentioned in the heading, involve common question of law in the context of common set of facts and thus they are being decided by a common order. 2. Every time the case is taken up for hearing, there is a request for adjournment on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant in all the cases. 3. It has been noticed that for the last three years, the appeals are either adjourned on request or on written requests made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant(s). 4. Today again, the same modus operandi has been brought into operation on the ground that the learned counsel for the appellant(s) is out of station, which, as per the settled principle of law, is not a valid ground for an adjournment. Hence, it can be safely presumed that the appellant(s) is not interested in pursuing the present appeals. 5. Dismissed for non-prosecution. 6. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 23-04-2026 Sapna Goyal (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/ reasoned: YES Whether reportable: NO SAPNA GOYAL 2026.04.24 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document