Jangir Kaur v. Balwinder Singh

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 29.01.2024 Jangir Kaur .... Appellant

Versus

Balwinder Singh @ Binder Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - None for the appellant.

None for respondents No. 1 and 2.

Service of respondents No. 3 to 8 exempted vide order dated 10.09.2004.

Respondent No. 9-died.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) After remaining unsuccessful before both the Courts below, defendant No. 1/appellant herein, has filed the instant Regular Second Appeal, against the judgment and decree of Ist Appellate Court dated 04.10.1994, affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 05.11.1992, whereby the 'suit for possession and also for declaration', filed by the plaintiff/respondents No. 1 and 2 herein, was partly decreed, inasmuch as, the plaintiffs were held to be owner of the suit land, but not entitled to possession as they were co-sharers along with others and were required to seek possession of the suit land through Revenue Court by

-2way of partition.

The plaintiff/respondents No. 1 and 2 have also filed crossobjections bearing XOBJR-6-C-1996. There is no representation on behalf of either of the parties. Perusal of the file shows that on the last date of hearing i.e. 19.10.2023, nobody had put in appearance for the appellant or respondents No. 1 and 2 despite having been informed about the date fixed through e-mail, as noted in office report. Thereafter, the Court had directed the Registry to issue actual date notices to the appellant as well as the respondents No. 1 and 2 for 29.01.2024, through registered post/A.D.

Pursuant thereto, as per office report dated 23.01.2024, notices issued to the sole appellant and respondents No. 1, 2 and 9 have been received back with the report 'died'.

In the aforesaid premise, issuance of fresh notice to either of the parties/their LRs would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer long pendency of the present second appeal before this Court for a period of more than 28 years, the appellant, as well as the plaintiff/cross-objectors/respondents No. 1 and 2, have lost interest in pursuing the same, as no attempt has been made by them or their LRs to contact their previous counsel or to engage a new counsel. Be that as it may, in view of the foregoing circumstances, the instant regular second appeal; as well as XOBJR-6-C-1996, are dismissed for non-prosecution, with liberty to the LRs of the sole appellant and LRs of plaintiff/respondents No. 1 and 2, to move an

-3appropriate application within a period of 03 months from today for reviving the same, if so, advised.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 29.01.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No