RSA-3518- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 203 Bhola Singh Nahar Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) concurrent findings rendered by both the Court for recovery filed by the plaintiff was decreed. was listed for hearing, -1999 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA Date of Decision: Bhola Singh Versus Nahar Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The appellant-defendant is in concurrent findings rendered by both the Court recovery filed by the respondent-plaintiff plaintiff was decreed. On the last date of hearing i.e. was listed for hearing, following order was passed by this Court: “The matter pertains to the year 1999 and has come up for hearing after 2012. There is no representation on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel appearing for that despite his best effort, he is not able to contact the respondent and prays for issuance of notice to the respondent. In the interest of justice, let actual date of hearing notice be issued to the parties for 27.5.2020. Registry shall also make an effort through the Sar IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3518-1999 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.05.2025 .… Appellant .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant. defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent findings rendered by both the Courts below whereby the suit plaintiff filed by the respondent- i.e. 03.04.2025, when this case following order was passed by this Court:- The matter pertains to the year 1999 and has come There is no representation on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent also submits t effort, he is not able to contact the respondent and prays for issuance of notice to the In the interest of justice, let actual date of hearing notice be issued to the parties for 27.5.2020. Registry shall also make an effort through the Sarpanch of the concerned below whereby the suit , when this case The matter pertains to the year 1999 and has come There is no representation on behalf of the appellant. the respondent also submits t effort, he is not able to contact the respondent and prays for issuance of notice to the In the interest of justice, let actual date of hearing notice be issued to the parties for 27.5.2020. Registry shall panch of the concerned RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-3518- appellant has been received back with the report that but refused to affix signatures respondent has been received back with the report ‘di Court is the defendant recovery of interest. Vide impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed recover the amount of ₹7500/- as interest) plaintiff on 15.05.1993. submits that no instructions whatsoever have been received from the appellant, even though, fresh notice was issued to the appella order reproduced above. would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer long pendency of the present second appeal before this Court for a period of more than years, the appellant has been made by counsel. -1999 (O&M) -2- village as well as SHO of the concerned area to effect service upon the parties, so that effective steps can be taken to dispose of the matter.” Pursuant thereto, as per office report notice issued to the sole appellant has been received back with the report that but refused to affix signatures; whereas notice issued to the sole respondent has been received back with the report ‘di Perusal of the record reveals that Court is the defendant; and the respondent recovery of ₹32,500/- i.e. ₹25,000/- as principal amount and Vide impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed; and the plaintiff was held entitled to recover the amount of ₹32,500/- (₹25,000/ as interest) from the defendant borrowed by him from the plaintiff on 15.05.1993. Learned counsel appearing for the submits that no instructions whatsoever have been received from the appellant, even though, fresh notice was issued to the appella order reproduced above. In the aforesaid premise, issuance of fresh notice to would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer long pendency of the present second appeal before this Court for a period of more than appellant has lost interest in pursuing the same, as no attempt has been made by the appellant to contact village as well as SHO of the concerned area to effect service upon the parties, so that effective steps can be taken to Pursuant thereto, as per office report notice issued to the sole appellant has been received back with the report that received summons ; whereas notice issued to the sole respondent has been received back with the report ‘died’. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant before this and the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for as principal amount and ₹7500/- as Vide impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, and the plaintiff was held entitled to 25,000/- as principal amount and from the defendant borrowed by him from the Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant submits that no instructions whatsoever have been received from the appellant, even though, fresh notice was issued to the appellant vide last In the aforesaid premise, issuance of fresh notice to appellant would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer long pendency of the present second appeal before this Court for a period of more than 25 lost interest in pursuing the same, as no attempt to contact his counsel or to engage a new village as well as SHO of the concerned area to effect service upon the parties, so that effective steps can be taken to Pursuant thereto, as per office report notice issued to the sole received summons ; whereas notice issued to the sole before this plaintiff had filed a suit for as Vide impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, and the plaintiff was held entitled to as principal amount and from the defendant borrowed by him from the defendant submits that no instructions whatsoever have been received from the nt vide last would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer long pendency of lost interest in pursuing the same, as no attempt counsel or to engage a new RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-3518- instant regular second appeal is liberty to within a period of 0 advised. 27.05.2025 rishu -1999 (O&M) -3- Be that as it may, in view of the foregoing circumstances, the instant regular second appeal is dismissed for non liberty to the appellant-defendant, to move an appropriate application within a period of 03 months from today for reviving the same, if so, Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Be that as it may, in view of the foregoing circumstances, the dismissed for non-prosecution, with to move an appropriate application months from today for reviving the same, if so, Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Be that as it may, in view of the foregoing circumstances, the with to move an appropriate application months from today for reviving the same, if so, RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.