RSA-2267- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232 Punjab National Bank M/s Roopam CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. judgment and decree dated 03.06.2000 District Judge, Panchkula, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated Trial Court was part trial Court was modified to the extent that the plaintiff held entitled to interest the date of institution of the suit till the date o the decretal amount. 2. hearing 28.03.2025 was passed -2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA Date of Decision: Punjab National Bank Versus M/s Roopam Collections and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Munish Thakur, Advocate for the appellant (through Video Conferencing). NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Appellant/plaintiff-Bank is in second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2000, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.1999, passed by the learned rt was partly allowed; and judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was modified to the extent that the plaintiff held entitled to interest @ 20.75% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of institution of the suit till the date o the decretal amount. The matter pertains to the year 2001 and 28.03.2025, when this case was listed was passed by this Court:- “Mr. Munish Thakur, Advocate has put and filed Memorandum of Appearance on behalf of appellant. The same is taken on record. He undertakes to file Power of Attorney on behalf of the Registry. The appeal pertains to the year 2001. As per office report notice issued to respondent No.1 has been received back unserved with the report ‘firm IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2267-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.08.2025 .… Appellant .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Munish Thakur, Advocate for the appellant Conferencing). in second appeal against the , passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-Bank 10.11.1999, passed by the learned y allowed; and judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was modified to the extent that the plaintiff-Bank would be @ 20.75% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree to be calculated on The matter pertains to the year 2001 and on the last date of was listed for hearing, following order Mr. Munish Thakur, Advocate has put in appearance filed Memorandum of Appearance on behalf of taken on record. He undertakes to file Power of Attorney on behalf of appellant within two weeks in The appeal pertains to the year 2001. report notice issued to respondent No.1 been received back unserved with the report ‘firm in second appeal against the , passed by the learned Additional Bank 10.11.1999, passed by the learned y allowed; and judgment and decree of the learned Bank would be @ 20.75% per annum with quarterly rests from f decree to be calculated on on the last date of , following order in appearance filed Memorandum of Appearance on behalf of taken on record. He undertakes to file appellant within two weeks in report notice issued to respondent No.1 been received back unserved with the report ‘firm RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.20 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2267- 3. respondents No. 1 to 4 appellant had 4. submits that instructions 5. accordingly, appropriate application within a period of reviving the same, if payment of to filing application for revival. 6. 19.08.2025 rishu -2001 (O&M) -2- closed’; and notice issued to respondents No.2 to 4 have been received back unserved with the given address’. Learned counsel for the furnish latest, correct and complete address of the respondents in the Registry within On his doing so, fresh notice to respondents be issued for 19.8.2025.” Office report dated 13.08.2025 respondents No. 1 to 4 could not be issued as had not furnished their correct address, till date. Today, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that despite repeated requests, he is receiving s from the appellant-Bank. In view of the above, the instant regular second appeal is accordingly, disposed of, with liberty to the appropriate application within a period of reviving the same, if any cause of action survives, however, subject payment of ₹25,000/- as costs to be deposited by the appellant application for revival. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand .08.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable issued to respondents No.2 to 4 have been received back unserved with the report ‘not residing at Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to correct and complete address of the respondents in the Registry within two weeks from today. On his doing so, fresh notice to respondents be issued 13.08.2025, indicates that fresh notices to could not be issued as, learned counsel for the their correct address, till date. earned counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank requests, he is receiving no fresh the instant regular second appeal is the appellant-Bank, to move an appropriate application within a period of 02 months from today for any cause of action survives, however, subject to as costs to be deposited by the appellant-Bank prior Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No issued to respondents No.2 to 4 have the report ‘not residing at appellant undertakes to correct and complete address of the to learned counsel for the Bank no fresh to move an months from today for to Bank prior RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.20 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.