Second appeal by plaintiffs against concurrent dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction; no one appeared for the appellants, who had lost at trial and in first appeal, so the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
203
RSA-3191-1997 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.08.2024
PREM KUMAR AND ORS
…..Appellants
Vs.
KARTAR KAUR …..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: None for the appellants.
Mr. Ashok K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Ms. Anamika Sheoran assis�ng counsel of Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate submits that she has no further instruc�ons to appear on behalf of the appellants.
Nobody else has put in appearance on behalf of the appellants. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent, this is an appeal filed by the plain�ffs against the concurrent findings of the Courts below inasmuch as suit for permanent injunc�on by the plain�ffs (appellants herein) was dismissed by the trial Court on 07.08.1995 and the appeal filed by them was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 06.01.1997.
In the aforesaid circumstances, it is highly doub1ul that even the cause of ac�on is s�ll surviving. Even otherwise nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the appellants, which indicates that they are no longer having any further interest to pursue the ma3er.
Dismissed in default for want of prosecu�on.
| (DE | EPAK GUPTA) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01.08.2024 | JUDGE | ||
| pry | |||
| Whether speaking/reasoned | : Yes |
||
| Whether reportable | : No |
PRIYANKA 2024.08.02 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Prem Kumar and Ors
Kartar Kaur
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
