RSA-855-2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 214 Hanuman Ram Gopal CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. concurrent findings rendered by both the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed by both the Courts below. 2. hearing after the year 20 3. the present second appeal was issued vide order dated co-ordinate Bench maintain status quo Thereafter, the present second appeal was listed for hearing 04 times i.e. on 04.08.2017, 22.02.2018, 25.09.2018 and 05.11.2019; out of which on 03 dates, 04.08.2017, 25.09.2018 and 05.11.2019, the same was adjourned at the written counsel for the appellant. Further, perusal of the order that prior to notice of motion order dated 2013 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA Date of Decision: Versus Ram Gopal and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA None for the appellant. Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The appellant-plaintiff in second appeal against the concurrent findings rendered by both the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The matter pertains to the year hearing after the year 2019. Perusal of the order-sheet(s) reveals that the present second appeal was issued vide order dated ordinate Bench of this Court and the parties were also directed to status quo regarding possession Thereafter, the present second appeal was listed for hearing 04 times i.e. 04.08.2017, 22.02.2018, 25.09.2018 and 05.11.2019; out of which on 03 dates, 04.08.2017, 25.09.2018 and 05.11.2019, the same was adjourned at the written request for an adjournment circulated by learned counsel for the appellant. Further, perusal of the order that prior to notice of motion order dated IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-855-2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.08.2025 .… Appellant .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Aayush Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4. in second appeal against the concurrent findings rendered by both the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The matter pertains to the year 2013 and has come up for sheet(s) reveals that notice of motion in the present second appeal was issued vide order dated 05.12.2016 by a and the parties were also directed to regarding possession over the suit property. Thereafter, the present second appeal was listed for hearing 04 times i.e. 04.08.2017, 22.02.2018, 25.09.2018 and 05.11.2019; out of which on 03 dates, 04.08.2017, 25.09.2018 and 05.11.2019, the same was request for an adjournment circulated by learned counsel for the appellant. Further, perusal of the order-sheets also reveals that prior to notice of motion order dated 05.12.2016, the appeal was in second appeal against the concurrent findings rendered by both the Courts below whereby his suit has come up for notice of motion in by a and the parties were also directed to over the suit property. Thereafter, the present second appeal was listed for hearing 04 times i.e. 04.08.2017, 22.02.2018, 25.09.2018 and 05.11.2019; out of which on 03 dates, 04.08.2017, 25.09.2018 and 05.11.2019, the same was request for an adjournment circulated by learned sheets also reveals 05.12.2016, the appeal was RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.05 19:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-855-2013 adjourned several 4. case having been called twice. 5. 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 neither the appellant nor counsel is Court is left with no other option except to for non-prosecution 6. 7. 04.08.2025 rishu 2013 (O&M) -2- several times at the request of learned counsel f Today, the appellant had gone un 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 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 neither the appellant nor 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 the request of learned counsel for the appellant the appellant had gone un-represented, despite the 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 present second appeal, Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No or the appellant represented, despite the 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 2025.08.05 19:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.