A one-line administrative dismissal: a 1992 regular second appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution because the appellants could not be served at their only available address, with liberty to revive if anything survives.
Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution with liberty to revive; pending applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:PHHC:033542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
134 RSA No.1685 of 1992 Date of Decision : 07.03.2024
Birbal Ram and Others ....Appellants
VERSUS
Jagdev Singh and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : None for the appellants.
None for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Respondent Nos.5 and 6 proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 02.11.1992.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.03.11 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
RSA No.1685 of 1992 -22024:PHHC:033542
( ALKA SARIN ) 07.03.2024 JUDGE jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.03.11 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
Birbal Ram and Others
Jagdev Singh
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 (unnamed)
Respondent No.4 (unnamed)
Respondents Nos.5 and 6 (unnamed)
Alka Sarin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
