RSA-1098- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 224 Man Singh Mukesh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) concurrent judgments and decrees suit of the plaintiff decreed. was issued way hearing for 05 times i.e. on 04.11.2016, 08.05.2017, 21.09.2017, 30.07.2019 and 07.02.2020; out of which on 02 dates i.e. 08.05.2017 and 30.07.2019, the appellant had gone un dates, the case was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the appellant. despite the case having been called twice. has exhibited an utterly casual attitude in litigation. It is to be appreciated that very valuable public time of the -2015 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA Date of Decision: Man Singh Versus Mukesh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA None for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for respondent No. 1. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendant-appellant is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of both the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction The matter pertains to the year was issued way back on 02.02.2016. Thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing for 05 times i.e. on 04.11.2016, 08.05.2017, 21.09.2017, 30.07.2019 and 07.02.2020; out of which on 02 dates i.e. 08.05.2017 and 30.07.2019, the appellant had gone un-represented; and on remaining 0 dates, the case was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the Today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant, despite the case having been called twice. 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1098-2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.03.2025 .… Appellant .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for respondent No. 1. in second appeal against the of both the Courts below whereby the and permanent injunction was The matter pertains to the year 2015 and notice of motion 02.02.2016. Thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing for 05 times i.e. on 04.11.2016, 08.05.2017, 21.09.2017, 30.07.2019 and 07.02.2020; out of which on 02 dates i.e. 08.05.2017 and represented; and on remaining 03 dates, the case was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the Today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant, 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 in second appeal against the of both the Courts below whereby the was of motion 02.02.2016. Thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing for 05 times i.e. on 04.11.2016, 08.05.2017, 21.09.2017, 30.07.2019 and 07.02.2020; out of which on 02 dates i.e. 08.05.2017 and 3 dates, the case was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the Today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant, pursuit of the present litigation. It is to be appreciated that very valuable public time of the RISHU KATARIA 2025.03.21 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1098- 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. 19.03.2025 rishu -2015 (O&M) -2- Court has been expended in affording opportunities to interest of justice. On the other hand, the appellant casual and careless approach. It is clear that 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. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Court has been expended in affording opportunities to the appellant in the nd, the appellant has adopted an utterly casual 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 appellant in the adopted an utterly or his seriously interested in pursuing the present matter. Thus, this RISHU KATARIA 2025.03.21 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.