RSA-3444- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 213 Mal Singh Nachhattar Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) concurrent findings of both the Courts below whereby the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. the year 20 co-ordinate Bench on 11.02.2013 and the parties were directed to maintain status quo. appellant was directed to deposit Sector-26, Chandigarh complied with till in the present appeal stands completed on 06.09.2013 present appeal was 20.07.2015 and 22.04.2016; 13.10.2014, the same was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 -2012 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA Date of Decision: Versus Nachhattar Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. SS Siao, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rampal Verma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The appellant-plaintiff is in second appeal concurrent findings of both the Courts below whereby the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Perusal of the order-sheet(s) shows that 2012 and notice of motion in the present appeal was issued by a ordinate Bench on 11.02.2013 and the parties were directed to status quo. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.11.2016, the appellant was directed to deposit ₹2500/- 26, Chandigarh. As per office report, the aforesaid order has not been complied with till date. Further perusal of order sheets reveals that service in the present appeal stands completed on 06.09.2013 present appeal was listed for 04 times i.e. on 13.10.2014, 04.02. 20.07.2015 and 22.04.2016; out of which except on one date 13.10.2014, the same was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2; and on the remaining 03 dates the case wa IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3444-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.04.2025 .… Appellant .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. SS Siao, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rampal Verma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below whereby the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. sheet(s) shows that the matter pertains to 12 and notice of motion in the present appeal was issued by a ordinate Bench on 11.02.2013 and the parties were directed to Thereafter, vide order dated 18.11.2016, the - as costs to the Blind School, As per office report, the aforesaid order has not been . Further perusal of order sheets reveals that service in the present appeal stands completed on 06.09.2013. Thereafter, the listed for 04 times i.e. on 13.10.2014, 04.02.2015, out of which except on one date i.e. 13.10.2014, the same was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for and on the remaining 03 dates the case was 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 ordinate Bench on 11.02.2013 and the parties were directed to Thereafter, vide order dated 18.11.2016, the School, As per office report, the aforesaid order has not been . Further perusal of order sheets reveals that service hereafter, the 2015, 13.10.2014, the same was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for s RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.23 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-3444- adjourned either at the request of learned counsel for the appellant or account of non order dated 18.11.2016, has not been complied with and was only at the time of filing of the present second appeal that the appellant had approached and letters him till date. It is fur that he had also contacted the Advocate representing the appellant before the Courts below, who ha appellant. appellant would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer long pendency of the present second appeal before this Court for a period of more than 12 no attempt has been m new counsel. this Court is left with no other option except to second appeal 21.04.2025 rishu -2012 (O&M) -2- adjourned either at the request of learned counsel for the appellant or account of non-appearance on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant order dated 18.11.2016, has not been complied with and was only at the time of filing of the present second appeal that the appellant had approached him and thereafter, despite repeated phone calls written to the appellant, no response has been received from till date. It is further submitted by learned counsel had also contacted the Advocate representing the appellant before the Courts below, who had also informed that he is not in touch with the In the aforesaid premise, issuance of fresh would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer long pendency of the present second appeal before this Court for a period of 12 years, the appellant has lost interest in pursuing the same, as no attempt has been made by him to contact new counsel. Be that as it may, in view of the foregoing circumstances, this Court is left with no other option except to second appeal for non-prosecution. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. .04.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable adjourned either at the request of learned counsel for the appellant or on the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant very fairly admits that the order dated 18.11.2016, has not been complied with and submits that it was only at the time of filing of the present second appeal that the and thereafter, despite repeated phone calls written to the appellant, no response has been received from learned counsel for the appellant had also contacted the Advocate representing the appellant before also informed that he is not in touch with the In the aforesaid premise, issuance of fresh notice to the would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer long pendency of the present second appeal before this Court for a period of lost interest in pursuing the same, as to contact his counsel or to engage a Be that as it may, in view of the foregoing circumstances, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the instant regular Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No on very fairly admits that the submits that it was only at the time of filing of the present second appeal that the and thereafter, despite repeated phone calls written to the appellant, no response has been received from for the appellant had also contacted the Advocate representing the appellant before also informed that he is not in touch with the the would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer long pendency of the present second appeal before this Court for a period of lost interest in pursuing the same, as ounsel or to engage a Be that as it may, in view of the foregoing circumstances, instant regular RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.23 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.