RSA-3175- IN THE HIG 113 Kartar Singh Jagat Singh a CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. plaintiff-app the District consequentia dismissed. 2. to the year 2 further revea dismissed fo the same wa request of le order dated restored; an counsel for t -2019 (O&M) -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA RSA Date o Singh Versus Singh and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH None. I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present regular second app appellant against the concurrent ju istrict Courts whereby the suit uential relief of permanent injunction Perusal of the order-sheet(s) rev year 2019 and notice in the main ap r revealed that vide order dated 02.0 sed for non-prosecution as, since the i was adjourned either on account t of learned counsel appearing for the dated 19.05.2025 passed by this C ; and was adjourned to 02.02.202 el for the appellant, subject to costs of ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3175-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.03.2026 .… Appellant .... Respondents NIDHI GUPTA nd appeal has been preferred by the rent judgments and decrees of both suit for declaration along with nction filed by the plaintiff has been reveal(s) that the matter pertains ain appeal is yet to be issued. It is 02.04.2025, the main appeal was e the inception of the present appeal ccount of non-appearance or at the or the appellant. Subsequently, vide this Court, the main appeal was 02.2026, at the request of learned sts of ₹50,000/- to be disposed with the with een ains It is was peal the vide was rned with RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.19 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-3175- the High C therefrom. 3. No. CM-692 which costs order dated Court; and th of ₹50,000/ 4. CM-9187-C costs of ₹20 07.08.2025, granted to th 5. deposited by 6. appellant ha appeal came round of hea 7. has exhibite litigation. It Court has be interest of ju casual and c -2019 (O&M) -2- igh Court Lawyers Welfare Fund w rom. Thereafter, the appellant mo 6922-C-2025 for recalling of the costs of ₹50,000/- was imposed upon dated 07.07.2025, the said applicatio and the appellant was directed to de ,000/- as imposed vide order dated 19. Again the appellant had moved C-2025 seeking extension of one 20,000/- in terms of order dated 2025, the said application was allowe d to the appellant to comply with the o As per record, the aforesaid ited by the appellant vide Receipt No. 4 On the last date of hearing ant had gone un-represented. Conse l came be listed for hearing today. To of hearing, none has put in appearance A bare reading of the above f xhibited an utterly casual attitude in ion. It is to be appreciated that very has been expended in affording oppor t of justice. On the other hand, the ap and careless approach. It is clear tha und within a period of 02 weeks moved an application bearing the order dated 19.05.2025, vide upon the applicant-appellant. Vide lication was partly allowed by this to deposit costs of ₹20,000/- instead 19.05.2025. moved another application bearing of one week’s time to deposit the dated 07.07.2025. Vide order dated allowed; and one week’s time was h the order dated 07.07.2025. esaid costs of ₹20,000/- has been t No. 4888 dated 08.08.2025. earing i.e. 02.02.2026, again the Consequently, the present second Today again, even in the second arance on behalf of the appellant. ove facts shows that the appellant tude in his pursuit of the present t very valuable public time of the opportunities to the appellant in the the appellant has adopted an utterly ear that neither the appellant nor his eeks ring vide ide this tead ring the ated was een the ond ond llant sent the the terly r his RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.19 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-3175- counsel is se earlier the p this Court v other option second time. 8. 9. 16.03.2026 rishu -2019 (O&M) -3- el is seriously interested in pursuing t the present second appeal was dismi ourt vide order dated 02.04.2025. Th option except to dismiss the same time. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable suing the present matter. Moreover, dismissed for non-prosecution by . Thus, this Court is left with no same for non-prosecution for the any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ver, by h no the RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.19 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.