Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36374 (PNJ)

PHOOLAN RANI v. KAMLA RANI

RSA/4147/2000 · 2025-07-24

Harpreet Kaur Jeewan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

RSA-4147-2000 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 RSA-4147-2000 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.07.2025 PHOOLAN RANI ...Appellant Versus KAMLA RANI AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: None. ***** HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN , J. 1. The appellant-Phoolan Rani has filed this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.09.1994 passed by the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Phagwara, whereby the suit for partition of the estate of Panna Lal Chadha-predecessor of the respondents was decreed and a preliminary decree on partition was passed. Thereafter, the first appeal was filed by the appellant, which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 01.08.2000. 2. The present Regular Second Appeal was admitted vide order dated 13.11.2000. As per order dated 23.01.2025, notice was ordered to be issued to the parties, upon observing that learned Senior counsel, who was representing the appellant had expired. 3. On 01.07.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant and the following order was passed: POONAM BHATT 2025.07.28 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA-4147-2000 (O&M) 2 "As per office report, sole appellant has been served. However, there is no representation on her behalf. It is noticed in the previous order that her counsel has expired. No one has come forward to pursue the appeal. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 24.07.2025." 4. As per office report, the sole appellant has already been served. Today again, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. 5. In such circumstances, it is evident that the sole appellant is not interested in pursuing the present Regular Second Appeal since no one has put in appearance on her behalf despite service being effected. 6. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. 7. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) JUDGE 24.07.2025 P.Bhatt Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No POONAM BHATT 2025.07.28 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment