241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 6044 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 Mukhtiar Singh (Retired), VPO Binjal, District Patiala, Punjab .......... Appellant Versus The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Sector-6, through its Chief Administrator and others .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Joginder Pal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant-plaintiff. Ms. Chhavi Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Raj Partap Singh Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No. 3. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff-Mukhtiar Singh has filed the present Regular Second Appeal. [2] The suit for declaration filed at the instance of plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panchkula-cum-trial Court. Thereafter, he filed an execution to enforce it before the learned Executing Court, which passed the order on 01.07.2015 by observing that there was no merit in the objections of the Decree Holder-plaintiff and it adjourned the proceedings on 10.07.2015 for making the payment by the defendant- DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.22 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 6044 of 2017 (O&M) -2- Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC for review of the order dated 01.07.2015, which was dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 19.08.2015 qua which the plaintiff filed an appeal. [3] Also, the defendant-Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 16.12.2014 passed by the learned trial Court, which stood accepted whereas the appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed vide common judgment and decree dated 18.11.2017 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Panchkula-cum-First Appellate Court. [4] In short, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court were reversed by learned First Appellate Court. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present Regular Second Appeal. [5] At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has died and upon instructions, submits that the legal representatives of appellant do not want to pursue the present appeal any further. [6] In view thereof, there is no option except to dismiss the present appeal for non-prosecution. [7] Dismissed for non-prosecution. [8] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. July 20, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) 'dk kamra’ JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.22 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document