Satbir v. Shyama @ Shyam Singh And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
**** RSA-1553-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.02.2026 Satbir . . . . Appellant Vs.
Shyama @ Shyam Singh and others . . . . Respondents ****
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Ms.Deepika, Advocate, for Mr.S.K. Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant.
**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) A written request for adjournment is received on behalf of counsel for the appellant. Before considering this request for adjournment, it may be relevant to take note of the order dated 03.05.2023, passed by this Court, which reads as under: - "The present appeal pertains to the year 2021. Repeatedly, the case has been adjourned on the request of counsel for the appellant. On 21.12.2021 the case was adjourned on the request of counsel for the appellant. Yet again, on 24.01.2022, the counsel for the appellant was stated to be indisposed and hence the case was adjourned to 10.03.2022. On 10.03.2022 the case was adjourned by order to 05.04.2022. On 05.04.
2022 a request for an adjournment was made on behalf of the counsel for the appellant on the ground that the son the arguing counsel was unwell and the case was adjourned to 21.07.2022. On 21.07.2022 a written request for an adjournment had been circulated on behalf of the counsel for the appellant on the ground that he was unwell and the case was adjourned to 12.12.2022. On 12.12.2022 none appeared, however, a written request was circulated on behalf of counsel for the appellant on the ground that he has undergone surgery and the case was adjourned to VIVEK PAHWA 2026.02.
RSA-1553-2021 2026:PHHC:024178 20.04.2023. On 20.04.2023 the case was adjourned on the request of counsel for the appellant to today. Today, again, a written request for an adjournment has been filed on behalf of counsel for the appellant on the ground that he is in personal difficulty as he is not well. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 21.11.2023."
2.
Even after the aforesaid order dated 03.05.2023, the matter was adjourned time and again, every time on the request made by counsel for the appellant for one or the other reason.
3.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the request for adjournment is absolutely not justified and declined. 4.
Faced with the situation, counsel for the appellant was asked to come prepared after an hour so as to address the arguments. However, learned counsel is unable to argue the matter and request for adjournment. 5.
Request is declined. As learned counsel for the appellant is not prepared for arguments, the appeal stands disposed of as not argued, despite number of opportunities.
(DEEPAK GUPTA) 17.02.2026 JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VIVEK PAHWA 2026.02.17 17:37 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh