Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 41343 (PNJ)

SHEELA WANTI AND OTHERS v. GURMAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER

RSA/1571/2001 · 2025-05-06

Vikram Aggarwal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

RSA No.1571 of 2001 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 217 RSA No.1571 of 2001 (O&M) Date of Decision :06.05.2025 Smt. Sheela Wanti and others ......Appellants Versus Gurmail Singh and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh Saini, Advocate for Mr. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (Oral) : On 16.04.2024, following order was passed by the Lok Adalat. “On 07.02.2024, notice was issued to the parties. As per office report, appellants No.1, 4, 6 served through affixation as they refused to accept notice whereas the appellants No.2 and 3 are stated to be out of country, appellants No. 5 and 9 are not residing at the given address whereas appellant No. 7 stands served, appellants No. 8 and 10 have since died. However, learned counsel for the appellants state that at this stage, he does not have complete instructions in the matter. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate circulates his power of attorney on behalf of the respondents which is taken on record. Considering the huge interrugnum period, we feel that the hostility between the parties must have died down or must have been blunted at this ripe age of the parties. Therefore, we feel that a serious try deserves to be given to settle the matter amicably. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to call the parties so that the finality in the matter is attained. List on 15.05.2024.” MANOJ KUMAR 2025.05.07 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.1571 of 2001 (O&M) 2 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that despite best efforts, no contact could be established with the appellants as they have not responded to his communications. 3. It appears that the appellants are no longer interested in pursuing the present appeal. 4. That being so, the present appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, liberty is granted to the appellants to move an appropriate application for revival of the appeal, in case, they are interested in pursuing the same. In case, no application for revival of the instant petition is moved within a period of three months, the amount of Rs. 20,000/- deposited, pursuant to order passed by this Court dated 11.04.2002, be released to the respondents along with interest accrued thereon. Since the main case itself has been decided, pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE 06.05.2025 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2025.05.07 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document