IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 208 Narinder Kumar Jugal Kishore and another CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) judgment and decree dated 12.5.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby the judgment and decree dated 04.8.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Amritsar on issues No.1 submitted before the learned Daily Lok Adalat that the parties are not in their contact and therefore Lok Adalat it has been recorded that notices issued to both the parties received back unserved due to incomplete address provided in the RSA-2208-2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2208 of 2001 Date of decision :-27.03.2025 Narinder Kumar Versus Jugal Kishore and another CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Chhatwal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.5.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby the judgment and decree dated 04.8.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Amritsar on issues No.1 to 5 and 5 has been dismissed. On 13.2.2024 learned counsel for the parties had submitted before the learned Daily Lok Adalat that the parties are not in their contact and therefore notice to the parties was issued. Vide order dated 06.3.2024 passed b Lok Adalat it has been recorded that notices issued to both the parties received back unserved due to incomplete address provided in the 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2208 of 2001 (O & M) .2025 …..Appellant …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Chhatwal, Advocate appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.5.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby the judgment and decree dated 04.8.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Amritsar on to 5 and 5 has been dismissed. On 13.2.2024 learned counsel for the parties had submitted before the learned Daily Lok Adalat that the parties are not notice to the parties was issued. Vide order dated 06.3.2024 passed by the learned Daily Lok Adalat it has been recorded that notices issued to both the parties received back unserved due to incomplete address provided in the VIJAY ASIJA 2025.03.28 19.43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Memo of Parties. Learned counsel for the parties had submitted that they had not been able to conta appellant had not approached to him despite several letters have been written to the appellant. appellant would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer long pendency of the present than 24 years, the appellant ha no attempt has been made by a new counsel. the instant appeal is dismissed for non appellant, to move an a months from today for reviving the same, if so, advised. March 27 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / Whether Reportable Yes / No RSA-2208-2001 Memo of Parties. Learned counsel for the parties had submitted that they had not been able to contact their clients. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had not approached to him despite several letters have been written to the appellant. In the aforesaid premise, issuance of fresh notice to the appellant 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 years, the appellant has lost interest in pursui no attempt has been made by him to contact his counsel or to engage a new counsel. Be that as it may, in view of the foregoing circumstances, the instant appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution, with liberty to the , to move an appropriate application within a period of 0 months from today for reviving the same, if so, advised. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. 7, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 2 Memo of Parties. Learned counsel for the parties had submitted that ct their clients. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had not approached to him despite several letters have been In the aforesaid premise, issuance of fresh notice to the appellant would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer long ppeal before this Court for a period of more lost interest in pursuing the same, as to contact his counsel or to engage Be that as it may, in view of the foregoing circumstances, prosecution, with liberty to the ppropriate application within a period of 04 months from today for reviving the same, if so, advised. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.03.28 19.43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document