RSA-2924- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 209 Rakesh Kapoor and another Sham Lal and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. concurrent findings rendered by both the Courts below whereby their suit for permanent injunction was dismissed. 2. before the Daily Pre 3. matter has come up for hearing after a long period and due to passage of time, he has lost contact with his clients. As such, learned counsel for the appellants pleaded ‘no instructions’ in the matter. the present was not clear if anything survives in the matter or not. prayed that the present rendered infructuous, application for reviving the same, in case anything survives. -2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA Date of Decision: Rakesh Kapoor and another Versus and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Kunal Soni, Advocate for Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for respondent No. 9. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Appellants-plaintiffs are in second appeal against the concurrent findings rendered by both the Courts below whereby their suit for permanent injunction was dismissed. The matter pertains to the year 2001 and was lastly listed before the Daily Pre-Lok Adalat of this Court in the year 2012. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the matter has come up for hearing after a long period and due to passage of time, he has lost contact with his clients. As such, learned counsel for the pellants pleaded ‘no instructions’ in the matter. the present was only a suit for permanent injunction if anything survives in the matter or not. prayed that the present second appeal may rendered infructuous, with liberty to the appellant application for reviving the same, in case anything survives. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2924-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.07.2025 .… Appellants .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Kunal Soni, Advocate for Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for respondent No. 9. plaintiffs are in second appeal against the concurrent findings rendered by both the Courts below whereby their suit The matter pertains to the year 2001 and was lastly listed dalat of this Court in the year 2012. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the matter has come up for hearing after a long period and due to passage of time, he has lost contact with his clients. As such, learned counsel for the pellants pleaded ‘no instructions’ in the matter. It is also submitted that for permanent injunction and, therefore, it is if anything survives in the matter or not. Accordingly, it is may be disposed of as having been with liberty to the appellants to move an appropriate application for reviving the same, in case anything survives. plaintiffs are in second appeal against the concurrent findings rendered by both the Courts below whereby their suit The matter pertains to the year 2001 and was lastly listed Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the matter has come up for hearing after a long period and due to passage of time, he has lost contact with his clients. As such, learned counsel for the It is also submitted that and, therefore, it is it is be disposed of as having been to move an appropriate RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.15 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2924- 4. disputed the 5. disposed of appellants months from today for reviving the same, if so, advised. 6. 14.07.2025 rishu -2001 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 9 has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellants. Be that as it may, the instant regular second appeal is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous 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. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 9 has not aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellants. Be that as it may, the instant regular second appeal is infructuous, with liberty to the to move an appropriate application within a period of 03 months from today for reviving the same, if so, advised. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 9 has not Be that as it may, the instant regular second appeal is the RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.15 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.