Dismissed¶28

Babu v. Sukhdevi

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2025RSA/11/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: dismissal in default for non-prosecution; no representation by counsel; failure to file process fee and fresh address; unimplemented impleadment directions (Chander, Karamveer as LRs of respondent No.1-Sukhdevi); revival of dismissed appeal within three months; liberty if cause of action survives; pending applications disposed. Useful when citing how the High Court of Punjab and Haryana treated an admitted RSA left dormant for roughly a decade, or the consequence of repeated non-appearance despite Registry notices to counsel.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed in default; liberty reserved to the appellant to seek its revival within three months from the decision date (16.05.2025) if any cause of action survives; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶28

Babu Vs Sukhdevi — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the admitted appeal RSA-11-2003 (O&M), dormant for years for want of prosecution by the appellant (unexecuted impleadment/service directions and prolonged absence of representation), should be dismissed in default.

¶28

Court's answer

In view of the appellant's act and conduct (failure to file process fee with the fresh address for about 12 years, unused address information, and no representation from 12.08.2014 onwards including on the decision date), the Court had no other option and dismissed the present appeal in default.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Liberty was reserved to the appellant to seek revival of the dismissed appeal within three months from the date of the order (today, i.e., the decision date), if any cause of action survives.

¶28

Key takeaways

Pending application(s), if any, standing in the appeal were disposed of alongside the dismissal.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Babu v. Sukhdevi (Deceased) through LRs and Others, RSA-11-2003 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Alok Jain, J., oral), decided 16.05.2025: an admitted regular second appeal, in which an impleadment application for two sons of respondent No.1 (Chander and Karamveer) had been pending since the order dated 10.01.2013, was dismissed in default. The appellant for about 12 years neither filed process fee with the fresh address nor effected service; addresses of respondents No. 3, 4, 6 to 8, supplied at the Court's request (orders dated 26.02.2014 and 12.08.2014), went unused; there was no representation for the appellant from 12.08.2014 until 13.12.2024, an adjournment was sought on 27.02.2025, and nobody appeared despite notice dated 08.04.2025. Liberty was reserved to seek revival within three months from the decision date if any cause of action survives; pending application(s), if any, stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

( 203 ) RSA-11-2003 (O&M)

¶3

Date of Decision:- 16.05.202 5

BABU

……Appellan t

Versus

SUKHDE V I (Deceased) through LRs and O rs.

¶8

……Respondent s

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN

¶10

¶11

Present: None for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Surender Dhul, Advocate f or respondent No.1.

¶13

¶14

ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)

¶15

Vide order dated 08.04.2025, learned counsel for the partie s were duly informed. However, despite th i s, there is no representation o n

¶16

their behalf .

¶17

Vide order dated 10.01.2013, t h e following order was passed:

¶18

In the admitted app e al, the aforementioned civi l miscellaneous application wa s filed for impleading two son s namely Chander and Karamve e r of respondent No.1-Sukhdevi. Notice of the application for impleadment was issued to th e said Chander and Karamveer.

¶19

As per office report, LR No.1 i.e. Chander is said to b e residing at Delhi whereas LR No.2 Karamveer is aid to hav e died.

¶20

It is further apparent that no steps have been taken fo r effecting service on the other u n served respondents as well. In the event of fresh / correct address of aforesai d Chander, alleged LR of resp o ndent No.1 within four week s from today, let notice be issue d for his service as well as othe r unserved respondents for 13.0 8 .2013. In the meanwhile, steps b e also taken to implead the LR s of aforesaid Karamveer to in t u rn of alleged LR of responden t No.1-Sukhdevi.

¶21

However, for the last 12 year s , the appellant has not filed th e

¶22

process fe e along with the fresh address. Although, vide order date d

¶23

26.02.2014, the respondent was also reques t ed to provide the addresses of

¶24

MANJU 2025.05.21 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

RSA-11-20 0 3 (O&M) -2-

¶26

respondent s No. 3, 4, 6 to 8 to the cou n sel for the appellant. The sai d information was duly supplied, as is e vident from the order date d 12.08.2014. However, the appellant has fa i led to take any steps, and ther e has been n o representation since 12.08. 2 014 for almost 10 years, til l 13.12.2024.

¶27

On 27.02.2025, Mr. Gurfateh Mann, Advocate, appeared fo r Mr. B.S. B e di, Advocate for the appellant and requested an adjournment . Even on th e last date of hearing, there wa s no representation on behalf o f the appella n t, and the Registry was onc e again directed to inform th e counsel for the parties. Today, again, there i s no representation on behalf o f the appella n t.

¶28

In light of the appellant's act and conduct, this Court has n o other optio n . Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in default wit h liberty to the appellant to seek its revival w i thin three months from today, i f any cause o f action survives.

¶29