IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (104+206) CM-6239-LPA-2025 in/and LPA-567-2015 Date of Decision : August 25, 2025 Bharat Singh and another .. Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Ms. Sadhvi Bharti, Advocate, for Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) 1. On the last date of hearing, following order was passed: “ Following order was passed on the last date of hearing: “ The records show that the matter had consecutively been adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the appellants. The position is not any different even today, as again an adjournment is prayed for. Though, there is hardly any justification to defer the proceedings, but, the interest of justice, adjourned to 12.05.2025. However, it is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted.” Today again, there is a request for adjournment on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 22.05.2025, subject to deposit of Rs.5,000/- as cost to be deposited with Benevolent Fund, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Bar Association, Chandigarh. In case, the arguments are not addressed on the next date of hearing, this appeal shall automatically stand dismissed for non-prosecution.” 2. A bare perusal of the above would show that in case learned counsel for the appellants does not argue the appeal, the same will be presumed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution. HARSHA RANI 2025.08.26 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-6239-LPA-2025 in/and 2 LPA-567-2015 3. Today again, there is a request for adjournment made by the learned counsel for the appellants, which request cannot be accepted in view of the peremptory order passed by the earlier Division Bench dated 12.05.2025. 4. Not only this, no valid justification has been received for adjournment. The reason being given is that they want to attach certain documents. 5. From the last date of hearing i.e. 12.05.2025 till today, there was sufficient time to place on record the documents in case the same were thought to be necessary but no such process has been undertaken and the effort is to get the case adjourned, which cannot be done in view of the order passed by earlier Division Bench dated 12.05.2025. 6. Keeping in view the order dated 12.05.2025 passed by the earlier Division Bench, the present appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. 7. Civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE August 25, 2025 (VIKAS SURI) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No HARSHA RANI 2025.08.26 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document