RSA-3446- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 227 Punjab State Electricity Board and another M/s JMP Castings Ltd. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. concurrent judgments of both the Courts below whereby the the plaintiff 2. 3. appeal was order dated either at the request of learned counsel for the appellants or on account of non-appearance on b moved by the appellant 05.01.2015 i.e. on 15.05.2015, 29.09.2015, 31.07.2017, 07.08.2019, 20.04.2 25.03.2025, but the same counsel for the appellant respondent. -2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA Date of Decision: Punjab State Electricity Board and another Versus M/s JMP Castings Ltd. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate with Mr. Rampal, Advocate for the respondents. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendant-appellants are concurrent judgments of both the Courts below whereby the the plaintiff-respondent was decreed. The matter pertains to the year Perusal of the order-sheet(s) appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution order dated 08.12.2014 as, the matter was consistently either at the request of learned counsel for the appellants or on account of appearance on behalf of the appellants. moved by the appellants, the same was restored vide order dated 05.01.2015. Thereafter, the present appeal i.e. on 15.05.2015, 29.09.2015, 31.07.2017, 07.08.2019, 20.04.2 25.03.2025, but the same was adjourned either at the request of learned counsel for the appellants or at the request of learned counsel for the respondent. On the last date of hearing i.e. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3446-2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2025 .… Appellants .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA . Vinod Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate with Mr. Rampal, Advocate for the respondents. are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments of both the Courts below whereby the suit filed by The matter pertains to the year 2011. sheet(s) reveals that earlier this second prosecution by a co-ordinate Bench vide the matter was consistently being adjourned either at the request of learned counsel for the appellants or on account of ehalf of the appellants. However, upon an application , the same was restored vide order dated was listed for hearing 06 times i.e. on 15.05.2015, 29.09.2015, 31.07.2017, 07.08.2019, 20.04.2023 and was adjourned either at the request of learned or at the request of learned counsel for the On the last date of hearing i.e. 25.03.2025, the case was in second appeal against the suit filed by second ordinate Bench vide either at the request of learned counsel for the appellants or on account of upon an application , the same was restored vide order dated listed for hearing 06 times 023 and was adjourned either at the request of learned or at the request of learned counsel for the the case was RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.24 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-3446- adjourned at the request of learne another request the appellant 4. have exhibited an utterly casual attitude in litigation. It is to be appreciated that very valuable public time of the Court has been expended in affording opportunities to the interest of justice. O utterly casual and careless approach. It is clear that neither the appellant nor their counsel Thus, this Court is left with no other option except to non-prosecution. 5. 6. 21.07.2025 rishu -2011 (O&M) -2- adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the appellants. another request for an adjournment has been made by learned counsel for the appellants, which is unjustifiable. A bare reading of the above facts shows that the appellant exhibited an utterly casual attitude in litigation. It is to be appreciated that very valuable public time of the Court has been expended in affording opportunities to the interest of justice. On the other hand, the appellant utterly casual and careless approach. It is clear that neither the appellant counsel are seriously interested in pursuing the present matter. Thus, this Court is left with no other option except to prosecution. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. 21.07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable d counsel for the appellants. Today, yet an adjournment has been made by learned counsel for A bare reading of the above facts shows that the appellants exhibited an utterly casual attitude in their pursuit of the present litigation. It is to be appreciated that very valuable public time of the Court has been expended in affording opportunities to the appellants in nd, the appellants have adopted an utterly casual and careless approach. It is clear that neither the appellants seriously interested in pursuing the present matter. Thus, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the same for Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Today, yet an adjournment has been made by learned counsel for pursuit of the present litigation. It is to be appreciated that very valuable public time of the in adopted an seriously interested in pursuing the present matter. e same for RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.24 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.