220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 15, 2025 (i) RSA No.2619 of 2008 (O&M) Baldev Singh and another … Appellants Versus Surjit Kaur …Respondent * * * * (ii) COCP No.1940 of 2021 Surjit Kaur … Pe;;oner Versus Baldev Singh and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- None for the appellants in RSA No.2619 of 2008 and for the respondents in COCP No.1940 of 2021. Mr. N.K. Vadehra, Advocate for the respondent in RSA No.2619 of 2008 and for the pe%%oner in COCP No.1940 of 2008. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) There is no representa%on on behalf of the appellants in RSA No.2619 of 2008 and for the respondent in COCP No.1940 of 2021. 2. In fact, appearance on behalf of appellants – Baldev Singh and another was made last %me through Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate on 29.03.2022. 3. On 10.01.2023, following order was passed by this Court:- “Since there is no representa%on on behalf of the appellant(s), purely in the interest of jus%ce, posted for 07.08.2023. It is made clear that in case ma8er is not argued on the next date of hearing, this Court would be constrained to vacate the interim stay granted on 05.08.2009. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file(s) of the connected ma8er(s).” Sarita Rani 2025.09.16 14:05 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RSA No.2619 of 2008 (O&M) - 2 - 2025:PHHC:127092 COCP No.1940 of 2021 4. Despite the aforesaid order and in%ma%on to learned counsel for the appellants, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the appellants in RSA No.2619 of 2008 and for the respondents in COCP No.1940 of 2021 %ll date. 5. Today again there is no representa%on on behalf of appellants – Baldev Singh and another. On the last date of hearing also, nobody had put in appearance for the said appellants. It appears that the appellants are no longer interested in pursuing the appeal, i.e. RSA No.2619 of 2008. 6. As such, RSA No.2619 of 2008 is hereby dismissed in default for want of prosecu%on. All the pending applica%on(s), if any also stand(s) disposed of. COCP No.1940 of 2021 Vide order dated 05.08.2009 passed in RSA No.2619 of 2008, this Court had directed the par%es to maintain status quo regarding the possession over the property in dispute %ll further orders. The present pe%%on was therea?er filed by the plain%ff-respondent in RSA alleging that, despite the said direc%on, the appellants in RSA had tried to lay founda%on by digging over the property in dispute, thereby commiAng civil contempt within the meaning of Sec%on 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, learned counsel for the plain%ff-respondent-pe%%oner did not press the aforesaid COCP. Accordingly, the same stands disposed of being not pressed. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file. September 15, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.09.16 14:05 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order