IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 219 RSA-4035-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision:06.11.2025 Manso (deceased) thr LRs …..Appellant Vs. Tarsem and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- None. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) There is no representaon on behalf of any of the party. It is despite the fact that Mr. A.S. Syan, Advocate, for the appellant through whom this appeal was filed and Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 4 have been duly informed through e-mail, as reported by the Registry. Noce issued to respondent No.2 received back duly served; whereas noce issued to respondent No.3 received back duly served through his brother, which is valid service in the eyes of law. Nobody is pu,ng appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. It appears that appellant is no longer interested in pursuing the present appeal. Dismissed in default for want of non-prosecuon. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE November 06, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.11.06 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document