RSA-3037- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 223 Thakar Dass Chiman Lal CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) concurrent findings of both the Courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction the year 20 co-ordinate Bench listed for hearing 03.11.2014, 19.11.2014, 12.02.2015 03.04.2017, 10.11.2017, 12.02.2018, 14.01.2020, 04.03.2 and 06.12.2023 or written request of learned counsel for the appellant non-appearance on be learned counsel for the parties or on account of non of either of parties. Last opportunity to address arguments has been granted on several dates, but to no avail. -2012 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA Date of Decision: Thakar Dass Versus Chiman Lal CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA None for the appellant. Mr. SPS Tinna, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The appellant-defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed. Perusal of the order-sheet(s) shows that 2012 and notice of motion in the present appeal was issued by a ordinate Bench way back on 25.07.2013. listed for hearing 16 times i.e. on 22.11.2013, 25.03.2014, 11.08.2014, 03.11.2014, 19.11.2014, 12.02.2015, 04.02.2016, 12.05.2 03.04.2017, 10.11.2017, 12.02.2018, 14.01.2020, 04.03.2 and 06.12.2023, on which dates the case was adjourned either at the oral or written request of learned counsel for the appellant appearance on behalf of the appellant; learned counsel for the parties or on account of non of either of parties. Last opportunity to address arguments has been granted on several dates, but to no avail. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3037-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.04.2025 .… Appellant .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. SPS Tinna, Advocate for the respondent. is in second appeal against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below whereby the suit for respondent was decreed. sheet(s) shows that the matter pertains to 12 and notice of motion in the present appeal was issued by a 25.07.2013. Thereafter, the case was 16 times i.e. on 22.11.2013, 25.03.2014, 11.08.2014, , 04.02.2016, 12.05.2016, 06.03.2017, 03.04.2017, 10.11.2017, 12.02.2018, 14.01.2020, 04.03.2022, 08.12.2022 the case was adjourned either at the oral or written request of learned counsel for the appellant, or on account of half of the appellant; or on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties or on account of non-appearance on behalf of either of parties. Last opportunity to address arguments has been is in second appeal against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below whereby the suit for he matter pertains to 12 and notice of motion in the present appeal was issued by a the case was 16 times i.e. on 22.11.2013, 25.03.2014, 11.08.2014, 016, 06.03.2017, 022, 08.12.2022 the case was adjourned either at the oral or on account of or on the joint request of appearance on behalf of either of parties. Last opportunity to address arguments has been RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.24 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-3037- appeared on behalf of the appellant and first requested for an adjournment. On his request being declined by this Court, learned counsel sought a appearance on behalf has 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 interest of justice. O casual and careless approach. It is clear that counsel is Court is left with no other option except to prosecution. 22.04.2025 rishu -2012 (O&M) -2- Today, in the first call Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and first requested for an adjournment. On his request being declined by this Court, learned counsel sought a pass-over. However, in the second call, none has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant. 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 interest of justice. On the other hand, the appellant l and careless approach. It is clear that is 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. .04.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable t call Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant and first requested for an adjournment. On his request being declined by this Court, learned counsel over. However, in the second call, none has put in A bare reading of the above facts shows that the appellant exhibited an utterly casual attitude in his 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 appellant in the n the other hand, the appellant has adopted an utterly l and careless approach. It is clear that neither the appellant nor his seriously interested in pursuing the present matter. Thus, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the same for non- Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No , appeared on behalf of the appellant and first requested for an adjournment. On his request being declined by this Court, learned counsel over. However, in the second call, none has put in pursuit of the present litigation. It is to be appreciated that very valuable public time of the appellant in the adopted an utterly his seriously interested in pursuing the present matter. Thus, this RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.24 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.