Bhagwan Kaur v. Sukhdeep Singh

RSA-2594-2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (232) RSA-2594-2000(O&M) Date of Decision:-11.11.2025 Bhagwan Kaur &&Appellant

Versus

Sukhdeep Singh &&Respondent

CORAM:

HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ****

Present:

None for the appellant.

Mr. Ravinder Singh Rawal, AAG, Punjab **** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral) 1.# Learned AAG, Punjab has filed a status report, which is taken on record. As per the report, compliance of the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by this Court has been duly effected.

2.# The status report reveals that the SHO, Police Station Bhawanigarh, was directed to verify the legal representatives of the deceased appellant. During the course of inquiry, the statement of Rajinder Singh (grandson of appellant Bhagwan Kaur) was recorded. He deposed that his grandfather, Gajjan Singh, had four brothers4the eldest being Gajjan Singh, followed by Bachan Singh, then Mall Singh, and the youngest, Kaka Singh. His grandfather was married to appellant-Bhagwan Kaur. From this wedlock, his father Amrik Singh and two aunts, namely Nachhattar Kaur (wife of Bhag Singh) and Jeeto Kaur (wife of Bachan Singh), were born. All of them were married. His father and both aunts -1SHUBHAM 2025.11.12 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order

RSA-2594-2000 have expired. Rajinder Singh stated that he is the only brother and has three sisters. He further stated that after the death of his grandfather, his grandmother started living with his grandfather9s brother Bachan Singh, from whom Surjit Singh was born. Surjit Singh expired about 40 years ago. Surjit Singh is survived by a son, Sukhdeep Singh, and a daughter, Paramjit Kaur. He also stated that his grandmother, Bhagwan Kaur, had filed a case before this Court against Sukhdeep Singh for rejection of mutation of land, for which the power of attorney was in the name of his mother, Nachhattar Kaur. His grandmother expired on 16.06.2006. However, the said dispute was amicably resolved by an agreement in the year 2003, and in view of that settlement, he stated that the family members do not wish to pursue the present appeal.

3.# From the above factual position, it is evident that not only has the original appellant expired long back, but the legal representatives have also expressly conveyed their unwillingness to pursue the present appeal, as the dispute already stands settled between the parties. 4.# In such circumstances, the present appeal is dismissed for nonprosecution, with liberty to the legal representatives of the appellants to seek its revival in case any cogent cause of action survives. 5.# Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE 11.11.2025 Shubham Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No -2SHUBHAM 2025.11.12 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order