Laxman Dass @ Makhan Lal v. Prem Lal And ORS
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
IN T THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ JAB AND HARYANA ARH AT CHANDIGA Laxman Prem Lal
CORAM
Present:- Regular Second Appeal No.4 Date of decision :-21.07.202 4524 of 2018 (O & M) Dass alias Makhan Lal (since d deceased) through LRs .....Appellants
Versus
l and others .....Respondents M:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE N NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Sheenam Banchta, Advo Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.
ocate for NIDHI G GUPTA J. (Oral) The present appeal has been n filed against the judgment and decre ee dated 26.08.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) , Hisar whereby the Civil Suit filed by the respondent No.
1/plaintiff f has been decreed to the effect t that respondent No.1/plaintiff is entitled d for half share of the Suit prop perty and appellant/defendant No.1(i) a alongwith respondents No.2 to 4/defendant No.1(ii) to (iv) and respo ondent No.5/defendant No.2 are entitled for other half share of the sui t property; as well as against the e Judgment and Decree dated 22.03.201 18 passed by learned Additi onal District Judge, Hisar whereby t the appeal filed by the appellan nt/defendant No.1(i) has been modified only to the extent that the r respondent No.1/plaintiff is entitled fo for half share and appellant/defe endant No.1(i) is entitled for other half f share on the basis of Lease Dee ed (Ex.P1).
The matter pertains to the year 2018 and notice of motion ha as not been issued so far. The order sheets shows that as many as nine times the matter has been n listed for hearing, out of which on n seven dates i.e. 24.2.2023 3, 18.7.2023, 21.11.2023, 28.11.202 23, 15.4.2024, 22.10.2024 and 25.3.2025 the matter was adjourned d on request of proxy counsel ap ppeared on behalf of arguing counsel fo for the appellants; on 20.8.2019 there was no representation on behalf f of appellants; and only on 19.3.2021 learned arguing counsel f for the appellants had put in appearance through video conferenc cing for preponement of date of hearing, which request was declined by the co-ordinate Bench. O On 24.2.
2023 when proxy counsel f for the appellant appeared and prayed for adjournment, it was speci ifically ordered by the co-ordina ate Bench that "...It is made clear tha at no further adjournment will be granted". Despite that learned ar rguing counsel for the appellants s did not adhere to the order passed by y the co-ordinate Bench of this C Court and had neither put in appearanc ce, nor argue the matter. Even to oday arguing counsel for the appellants s is not available and as usual r request for adjournment has been soug ght by the proxy counsel for the a appellants.
A bare reading of the ab bove facts shows that the appellants s have exhibited an utterly casu ual attitude in the pursuit of the presen nt litigation. It is to be appreciat ted that very valuable public time of th he Court has been expended in a affording opportunities to the appellants s in the interest of justice. On th he other hand, the appellants have adop pted an utterly casual and carele ess approach. It is clear that
neither th he appellants nor their counsel l are seriously interested in pursuing the present matter. Thus, this Court is left with no other option ex cept to dismiss the same for non n-prosecution.
Ordered accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any y, shall stands disposed of.
July 21, 2 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Vijay Asija Whether spe Whether Rep eaking/reasoned Yes / No portable Yes / No