Disposed¶21

Babu Singh v. Gurbachan Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jul 2025COCP/85/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, COCP No.85 of 2010 (O&M), decided 22.07.2025 by Nidhi Gupta J. (Oral): contempt petition by Babu Singh (deceased) through LRs and others against Gurbachan Singh and others for non-compliance of order dated 10.2.2007 (Annexure P-1) in RSA-922-2001; disposed of for non-prosecution — no representation on 19.3.2025, notices served/unserved per office report, pendency exceeding 14 years, liberty granted to seek revival by application within 02 months; pending applications disposed of; no finding on contempt; no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate application within 02 months for reviving the matter, if so advised; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶21

Babu Singh Vs Gurbachan Singh and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate application within 02 months for reviving the matter, if so advised; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents for not complying with the order dated 10.2.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by a co-ordinate Bench in RSA-922-2001.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Issuance of fresh notice to the parties would be a futile exercise; owing to pendency of the matter for more than 14 years, the petitioners have lost interest in pursuing it, making no attempt to contact their counsel or engage new counsel.

¶20

Key takeaways

The matter is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate application within 02 months for reviving the same, if so advised; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. The contempt issue itself is not adjudicated.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition (COCP No.85 of 2010 O&M) seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for not complying with the order dated 10.2.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in RSA-922-2001, titled 'Gurbachan Singh and others vs. Babu Singh and others'. On the last date of hearing (19.3.2025) none of the parties was represented; per office report in the connected matter, notices to the appellant and respondents No.1 to 4 were received back served but unrepresented, while notice to respondent No.5 returned unserved with the report 'no such person of this name is working on the given address'. With the matter pending for more than 14 years and the petitioners having lost interest, issuance of fresh notice was held to be a futile exercise; the appeal/petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate application within 02 months for its revival, if so advised, and pending application(s) stood disposed of. The question of initiating contempt proceedings was left undecided.

¶1

COCP-85-2010 (O & M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

203-II

¶5

COCP No.85 of 2010 (O & M ) Date of decision :-22.07.2025

¶6

Babu Singh (deceased) through LRs and others

¶7

…..Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Gurbachan Singh and others

¶10

…..Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶12

Present:None.

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

¶14

Prayer in this petition is for initiation of contempt proceedi n gs against the respondent(s) f or not complying the order dated 10. 2 .2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RSA-922-2001 titled as “Gur b achan Singh and others vs. Babu Sin g h and others”.

¶15

On the last date of hearing i.e. 19.3.2025 there was no represent a tion on behalf of any of the parties. Accordingly, the coordinate B ench has issued notice to the p a rties.

¶16

As per office report recei v ed in connected matter i.e. RSA-922-2001, notice issued to appella n t and respondents No.1 to 4 have bee n received back served, howev e r, there is no representation on their b ehalf. Notice issued to respondent No.5 has been received back uns e rved with the report ‘no such p e rson of this name is working on the gi v en address’.

¶17

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.24 17.29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

¶19

COCP-85-2010 (O & M)

¶20

In the aforesaid premise, iss u ance of fresh notice to the parties would be a futile exercise. It ap p ears that due to sheer long pendenc y of the present appeal before thi s Court for a period of more than 14 y ears, the petitioners have lost i n terest in pursuing the same, as no att e mpt has been made by them t o contact their counsel or to engage a new counsel.

¶21

Be that as it may, in view of the foregoing circumstances, the insta n t appeal is disposed of , with liberty to the petitioners, to move an appropriate application within a period of 02 months from today for reviving the same, if so, advise d . Pending application(s), if an y , shall stands disposed of.

¶22

July 22, 2 025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

¶23

Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No

¶24

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.24 17.29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Babu Singh v. Gurbachan Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Singh v. Gurbachan Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Lal Vs M/S Shiv and Co.

Promila Devi and Others Vs Matu Ram(Since Deceased) through Lrs and Others

Darshan Singh and Ors. Vs Sukhdev Singh and Ors.

Vishnu Singhal Vs Chander Mohan

Dharambir etc. Vs Piare Lal

Sukhbir Kaur Alias Sukhvir Kaur Vs Amarjit Kaur Deceased through Lrs and Others