Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Jagroop Singh Gill Vs Avtar Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Punjab & Haryana HC
2025
Jagroop Singh Gill Vs Avtar SinghJagroop Singh Gill v. Avtar Singh

Dismissed¶18

Jagroop Singh Gill v. Avtar Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Aug 2025CR/5970/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: dismissal for non-prosecution; casual and careless approach of petitioner; restoration of revision earlier dismissed for non-prosecution (28.09.2018 dismissed; 19.07.2019 restored); un-represented petitioner; East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949, Section 13; ejectment petition; Rent Controller Moga; Appellate Authority affirmation dated 01.08.2016; tenant-landlord dispute; CR-5970-2016 (O&M); Nidhi Gupta, J.; decision dated 07.08.2025; pending applications disposed of. Parties: Jagroop Singh Gill (petitioner-tenant) v. Avtar Singh (respondent-landlord). No advocates recorded ('Present: - None.'); no cases cited; no monetary amounts involved.

What did the court decide?

Neither the petitioner nor his counsel is seriously interested in pursuing the present matter, the petitioner having adopted an utterly casual and careless approach despite valuable public time of the Court expended in affording opportunities.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision petition, pursued by the petitioner with an utterly casual attitude through repeated non-appearance and adjournments, should be dismissed for non-prosecution.

Court's answer

Neither the petitioner nor his counsel is seriously interested in pursuing the present matter, the petitioner having adopted an utterly casual and careless approach despite valuable public time of the Court expended in affording opportunities.

Ratio / Principle

The Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the present revision petition for non-prosecution.

Key takeaways

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Nidhi Gupta, J., oral; decision 07.08.2025) — Civil Revision CR-5970-2016 (O&M), Jagroop Singh Gill (petitioner-tenant) v. Avtar Singh (respondent-landlord): revision against the Rent Controller, Moga's order dated 09.05.2014 allowing the landlord's ejectment petition under S.13, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 01.08.2016. Petition earlier dismissed for non-prosecution on 28.09.2018 and restored on 19.07.2019; thereafter repeatedly adjourned at counsel's request or for non-appearance; on the date of hearing the petitioner was un-represented despite the case being called twice. Court held neither the petitioner nor his counsel was seriously interested in pursuing the matter and dismissed the revision for non-prosecution; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. No precedent cited or engaged with.

A

CR-5970-2016 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HI G H COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

232 CR- 5 970-2016 (O&M)

Dat e of Decision: 07.08.2025

Jagroop Si n gh Gill .… Petitioner

Versus

Avtar Sin g h .... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - None.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

By way of filing the present r evision petition the petitionertenant ass a ils the order dated 09.05.201 4 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Moga, whereby the ejectment p etition filed by the respondentlandlord u n der Section 13 of the East Pun j ab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, was allowed; and the said order w a s also affirmed by the learned Appellate A uthority, vide impugned order d ated 01.08.2016. 2. The matter pertains to the y e ar 2016 and has come up for hearing after the year 2023. Notice is yet t o be issued in the present case. 3. Perusal of the order-sheet(s) r eveals that earlier this revision petition w a s dismissed for non-prosecutio n by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vid e order dated 28.09.2018, on a ccount of non-appearance on behalf of t h e petitioner. Subsequently, up o n an application moved by the petitioner, the same was restored vide ord e r dated 19.07.2019. Thereafter, on 27.11.2 0 19, when this case was listed fo r hearing, following order was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Cou r t:-

“Counsel for the petit i oner has challenged the order as passed by Rent Controlle r under Section 13 of the East

RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.08 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CR-5970-2016 (O&M) -2-

Punjab Urban Rent Restri c tion Act, 1949 subsequently affirmed by the appellate authority on 01.08.2016. This matter has been p e nding in Court since then as on date no arguments have been a ddressed. Let this Court be infor m ed as to whether the grievance of the petitioner still survive. Adjourned to 13.02.20 2 0.”

On the next date of hearing i.e. 16.02.2023, learned counsel

for the pet i tioner had again sought time to get instructions. Further, on the last 02 dat e s of hearing, 27.07.2023 and 2 1.11.2023, the present revision was adjou r ned at the written request of le a rned counsel for the petitioner and on a ccount of non-appearance o n behalf of the petitioner, respectivel y . Today, again the petitioner h a d gone un-represented, despite the case h a ving been called twice.

A bare reading of the above facts shows that the petitioner has exhib i ted an utterly casual attitude in his pursuit of the present litigation. I t is to be appreciated that ve r y valuable public time of the Court has b een expended in affording opp o rtunities to the petitioner in the interest of j ustice. On the other hand, the p etitioner has adopted an utterly casual and careless approach. It is clear t h at neither the petitioner nor his counsel is seriously interested in pursuin g the present matter. Thus, this Court is left with no other option except t o dismiss present revision, for non-prose c ution.

Ordered accordingly. 7. Pending application(s), if any , shall stands disposed of.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.08 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the revision petition, pursued by the petitioner with an utterly casual attitude through repeated non-appearance and adjournments, should be dismissed for non-prosecution.medium confidence¶18
The court held
Neither the petitioner nor his counsel is seriously interested in pursuing the present matter, the petitioner having adopted an utterly casual and careless approach despite valuable public time of the Court expended in affording opportunities.ratio¶18

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949Section 13¶11

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Impugned order dated 01.08.2016 of the learned Appellate Authority affirming the order dated 09.05.2014 of the learned Rent Controller, Moga, whereby the respondent-landlord's ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was allowed.¶11
learned Appellate Authority · 01.08.2016
Prior proceeding
Ejectment petition of the respondent-landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Moga vide order dated 09.05.2014.¶11
Prior proceeding
Notice stated to be yet to be issued in the present case.¶11
Prior proceeding
Revision petition earlier dismissed for non-prosecution by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.09.2018 on account of non-appearance of the petitioner.¶11
Prior proceeding
Upon an application moved by the petitioner, the dismissed revision petition was restored vide order dated 19.07.2019.¶11
Prior proceeding
On 27.11.2019, when the case was listed for hearing, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:¶11
Prior proceeding
Co-ordinate Bench's order noted the matter pending with no arguments addressed, sought information whether the petitioner's grievance still survived, and adjourned the case to 13.02.2020.¶15
Prior proceeding
On 16.02.2023 learned counsel for the petitioner again sought time to get instructions; on the last two dates of hearing, 27.07.2023 and 21.11.2023, the revision was adjourned at the written request of learned counsel and on account of non-appearance of the petitioner, respectively.¶17
Prior proceeding
On the date of decision the petitioner had again gone un-represented despite the case having been called twice.¶17

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Jagroop Singh Gill¶5
respondent
Avtar Singh¶7

Coram

AI extract

Nidhi Guptaauthor¶8

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Punjab & Haryana HC
Decided on: 7 Aug 2025 · August
Registered: 9 Sept 2016
Case no.: CR/5970/2016
CNR: PHHC010094062016
Bench: Nidhi Gupta
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: CR

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Nidhi Gupta

Gurbaksh Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur
6 Aug 2025
Gurjeet Kaur Vs Navjeet Kaur and Another
6 Aug 2025
Kulwant Singh Vs Abhimanyu Rana , Ips, Ssp and Anr.
6 Aug 2025
Balbir Singh Since Deceased Thorugh Lrs Vs Jaswant Singh Ghuman and Ors.
7 Aug 2025
Harpreet Singh Vs Kamal Kishore Yadav and Others
7 Aug 2025
Jasprit Kaur and Anr. Vs Sandeep Singh and Ors.
7 Aug 2025

Cite this judgement

Jagroop Singh Gill v. Avtar Singh, CR/5970/2016 (P&H), decided on 7 August 2025.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949Section 13

View all statutes

Procedural history9

Impugned order dated 01.08.2016 of the learned Appellate Authority affirming the order dated 09.05.2014 of the learned Rent Controller, Moga, whereby the respondent-landlord's ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was allowed.learned Appellate Authority · 01.08.2016
Ejectment petition of the respondent-landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Moga vide order dated 09.05.2014.
Notice stated to be yet to be issued in the present case.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Nidhi Gupta

Parties & counsel