IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 111 Babu Ram (since deceased) through LRs Satbir Singh and another CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) filed the present appeal against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for legal partition has been dismissed. motion has not been issued. date of hearing i.e. 25.4.2017 there was no representation on behalf of appellant. Thereafter on the second date when the matter was taken up i.e. 17.9.2018 learned counsel for the appellant informed that the had expired and sought time to implead his legal representatives and the matter was adjourned for 18.3.2019. On 18.3.2019 because there was no representation on behalf of appellant, the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution by co 03.7.2019 the appeal was restored. Thereafter, as many as seven times the matter has been listed for hearing, out of which on two dates i.e. RSA-1258-2017 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1258 of 2017 (O & M) Date of decision :-02.04.2025 Babu Ram (since deceased) through LRs Versus Satbir Singh and another CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Ved Parkash, Advocate for the appellants. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) The plaintiff (appellant (deceased) herein through LRs) has the present appeal against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for legal partition has been dismissed. The matter pertains to the year 2017 and still notice of motion has not been issued. The order sheets shows that on the very first date of hearing i.e. 25.4.2017 there was no representation on behalf of appellant. Thereafter on the second date when the matter was taken up i.e. 17.9.2018 learned counsel for the appellant informed that the had expired and sought time to implead his legal representatives and the matter was adjourned for 18.3.2019. On 18.3.2019 because there was no representation on behalf of appellant, the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Vide order dated 03.7.2019 the appeal was restored. Thereafter, as many as seven times the matter has been listed for hearing, out of which on two dates i.e. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1258 of 2017 (O & M) …..Appellants …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA The plaintiff (appellant (deceased) herein through LRs) has the present appeal against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for legal The matter pertains to the year 2017 and still notice of The order sheets shows that on the very first date of hearing i.e. 25.4.2017 there was no representation on behalf of appellant. Thereafter on the second date when the matter was taken up i.e. 17.9.2018 learned counsel for the appellant informed that the appellant had expired and sought time to implead his legal representatives and the matter was adjourned for 18.3.2019. On 18.3.2019 because there was no representation on behalf of appellant, the appeal was dismissed for non- nch of this Court. Vide order dated 03.7.2019 the appeal was restored. Thereafter, as many as seven times the matter has been listed for hearing, out of which on two dates i.e. VIJAY ASIJA 2025.04.05 12.31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 19.7.2019 and 19.5.2023 there was no representation on behalf of appellant and 11.11.2024 counsel or on request of learned proxy counsel for the appellant. last date of hearing i.e. 11.11.2024 learned c sought time to submit the synopsis and a comprehensive overview of all the properties inherited by the parties from their father Daya Kishan. The matter was adjourned for today i.e. 02.4.2025 and learned counsel for the appellant was directed to do the needful in the meantime. As per office report dated 29.3.2025, learned counsel for the appellant has not complied with the order dated 11.11.2024. the appellant exhibited an utterly casual attitude in the 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 th justice. On the other hand, the appellant has adopted an utterly casual and careless approach. It is clear that neither the applicant counsel are seriously interested in pursuing the present matter. Thus, this Court is left with no other option except to prosecution. April 02, 2 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No RSA-1258-2017 (O & M) 19.7.2019 and 19.5.2023 there was no representation on behalf of appellant and on rest of the dates i.e.11.2.2020 11.11.2024 the matter was adjourned either on request of learned arguing counsel or on request of learned proxy counsel for the appellant. last date of hearing i.e. 11.11.2024 learned c sought time to submit the synopsis and a comprehensive overview of all the properties inherited by the parties from their father Daya Kishan. The matter was adjourned for today i.e. 02.4.2025 and learned counsel for the was directed to do the needful in the meantime. As per office report dated 29.3.2025, learned counsel for the appellant has not complied with the order dated 11.11.2024. Even today the appellant is seeking adjournment. A bare reading of the above facts shows that the appellant has exhibited an utterly casual attitude in the 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 interest of justice. On the other hand, the appellant has adopted an utterly casual and careless approach. It is clear that neither the applicant counsel are 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 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 2 19.7.2019 and 19.5.2023 there was no representation on behalf of on rest of the dates i.e.11.2.2020, 14.11.2023, 16.4.2023 and the matter was adjourned either on request of learned arguing counsel or on request of learned proxy counsel for the appellant. On the last date of hearing i.e. 11.11.2024 learned counsel for the appellant sought time to submit the synopsis and a comprehensive overview of all the properties inherited by the parties from their father Daya Kishan. The matter was adjourned for today i.e. 02.4.2025 and learned counsel for the was directed to do the needful in the meantime. As per office report dated 29.3.2025, learned counsel for the appellant has not complied Even today learned counsel appearing for re reading of the above facts shows that the appellant has exhibited an utterly casual attitude in the pursuit of the present litigation. It is to be appreciated that very valuable public time of the Court has been e appellant in the interest of justice. On the other hand, the appellant has adopted an utterly casual and careless approach. It is clear that neither the applicant-appellant nor his counsel are 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 VIJAY ASIJA 2025.04.05 12.31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document