IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 142 CR-7211-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 Kamaljeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus Bhag Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Mr. Amrik Singh Kalra, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral) 1. The matter is shown in the urgent cause list. On being called at its turn, no one had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and accordingly, the following order was dictated in open Court:- “No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. The following order was passed on the previous hearing, i.e. 04.05.2026: “Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks for an adjournment, which is granted as a last opportunity subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/-, to be deposited with the fund maintained by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Legal Services Committee. Adjourned for 23.07.2026. It is expressly made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted.” As per office report, no proof of depositing of the costs has been placed on record. For the adjournment caused today despite the aforesaid order having been passed on the previous hearing, further costs of Rs.5000/- are imposed on the petitioner, to be deposited with the fund maintained by the Punjab and Haryana High Court HARISH KUMAR 2026.07.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-7211-2025 (O&M) (2) Legal Services Committee. List on 03.11.2026.” 2. Thereafter, in post lunch session, a mention has been made and the file has again been taken up for hearing. 3. At this stage, before the above extracted order could be signed, Mr. Amrik Singh Kalra, Advocate, has put in appearance and submits that he has instructions to state that the petitioner does not wish to press the present petition any further and hence, he prays for withdrawal of the same. 4. On the query of the Court, learned counsel submits that he is not in a position to inform the Court whether the costs imposed vide order dated 04.05.2026 have been deposited or not. Be that as it may, the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner deserves consideration. Accordingly, the order dictated earlier in the day, on default of appearance, shall be substituted by this order. 5. Dismissed as withdrawn. 6. However, let the order dated 04.05.2026 be complied with, within four weeks from today, failing which the Registry to put up the matter before this Court, for this limited purpose. 7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( VIKAS SURI ) July 23, 2026 JUDGE harish Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No HARISH KUMAR 2026.07.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment