IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 204 Kaka Singh The Punjab Ltd. and others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) against the judgment Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the respondent No.1 herein has been held entitle to recover the amount of Rs.35,100/ defendant No.2 (appellant herein) and defendant No.3 jointly and seve ordinate Bench of this Court : RSA-1790-2001 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1790 of 2001 (O & M) Date of decision :-23.07.2025 Kaka Singh Versus The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd. and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA None. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) The appellant/defendant No.2 has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.1.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the respondent No.1 herein has been held entitle to recover the amount of Rs.35,100/ defendant No.2 (appellant herein) and defendant No.3 jointly and seve On the last date of hearing, following order was passed by co ordinate Bench of this Court :- “Nobody is putting in appearance on behalf of any of the party. It is revealed that this appeal was admitted wayback on 26.07.2002. For some of the dates it was listed before the daily Lok Adalat but compromise could not be effected. Thereafter it has been listed for regular hearing for the first time. Respondent No.1 is already ex parte whereas service of respondent No.3 is dispensed with. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1790 of 2001 (O & M) …..Appellant State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA The appellant/defendant No.2 has filed the present appeal and decree dated 11.1.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the respondent No.1 herein has been held entitle to recover the amount of Rs.35,100/- from the defendant No.2 (appellant herein) and defendant No.3 jointly and severally. On the last date of hearing, following order was passed by co- Nobody is putting in appearance on behalf of any of the party. It is revealed that this appeal was admitted wayback on 26.07.2002. For some of the it was listed before the daily Lok Adalat but compromise could not be effected. Thereafter it has been listed for regular hearing for the first time. Respondent No.1 is already ex parte whereas service of respondent No.3 is dispensed with. VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.24 17.18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document learned counsel for both the parties have been informed. Qua petitioner (appellant) it is reported that ‘not residing at given address/incomplete address’. Respondent No.1 is re respondent No.3 is stated to be ‘dispensed with’; and respondent No.3 is ‘proforma respondent’. parties would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to she pendency of the present appeal before this Court for a period of more than 24 years, the parties have lost interest in pursuing the same, as no attempt has been made by them to contact their counsel or to engage a new counsel. instant appeal is appropriate application within a period of 0 reviving the same, if so, advised. July 23, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No RSA-1790-2001 (O & M) Earlier appellant was represented through Mr. A.S. Randhawa, Advocate whereas Mr. Ashok Jagga, Advocate was representing the respondent No.2. Adjourned to 23.07.2025. In the meantime, intimation to the counsel for both the sides as well as to the parties be issued for t date fixed.” Pursuant to the said order, the office report depicts that learned counsel for both the parties have been informed. Qua petitioner (appellant) it is reported that ‘not residing at given address/incomplete address’. Respondent No.1 is reported to be ‘ex respondent No.3 is stated to be ‘dispensed with’; and respondent No.3 is ‘proforma respondent’. In the aforesaid premise, issuance of fresh notice to the parties would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to she pendency of the present appeal before this Court for a period of more than 24 years, the parties have lost interest in pursuing the same, as no attempt has been made by them to contact their counsel or to engage a new Be that as it may, in view of the foregoing circumstances, the instant appeal is disposed of, with liberty to the appropriate application within a period of 0 reviving the same, if so, advised. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. , 2025 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 2 ant was represented through Mr. A.S. Randhawa, Advocate whereas Mr. Ashok Jagga, Advocate was representing the respondent No.2. Adjourned to 23.07.2025. In the meantime, intimation to the counsel for both the sides as well as to the parties be issued for the Pursuant to the said order, the office report depicts that learned counsel for both the parties have been informed. Qua petitioner (appellant) it is reported that ‘not residing at given address/incomplete ported to be ‘ex-parte’; service upon respondent No.3 is stated to be ‘dispensed with’; and respondent No.3 is In the aforesaid premise, issuance of fresh notice to the parties would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer long pendency of the present appeal before this Court for a period of more than 24 years, the parties have lost interest in pursuing the same, as no attempt has been made by them to contact their counsel or to engage a new Be that as it may, in view of the foregoing circumstances, the , with liberty to the parties, to move an appropriate application within a period of 02 months from today for on(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.24 17.18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document