Disposed¶24

Parkashwati and Ors. v. Mohanlal and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Aug 2025RSA/1135/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA-1135-2001 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana HC, decided 08.08.2025 by Nidhi Gupta J. (oral). Subject: mandatory injunction suit decree upheld concurrently below; appeal disposed of after 24+ years' pendency without fresh notice, on futility grounds (death of original counsel N.D. Achnit and of respondent No.1 Mohan Lal; appellants 1-6 unserved; addresses of respondents 3-4 not furnished). Liberty granted to revive the appeal by application within 02 months. No statute or precedent engaged; no merits findings.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of with liberty to the parties to move an appropriate application within 02 months for reviving the same, if so advised. ¶24

Parkashwati and Ors. Vs Mohanlal and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of with liberty to the parties to move an appropriate application within 02 months for reviving the same, if so advised.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether issuance of fresh notice to the parties would serve any purpose, and how the appeal pending since 2001 should be dealt with, given the expiry of the original counsel for the appellants, the death of respondent No.1, and the absence of service/correct addresses for the remaining parties.

¶24

Court's answer

Issuance of fresh notice to the parties would be a futile exercise.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Due to sheer long pendency of the present appeal before this Court for a period of more than 24 years, the parties have lost interest in pursuing the same.

¶24

Key takeaways

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with liberty to the parties to move an appropriate application within a period of 02 months from today for reviving the same, if so advised.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Nidhi Gupta J., oral order dated 08.08.2025) disposed of Regular Second Appeal No.1135 of 2001 (O & M) challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below decreeing respondent No.1/plaintiff's suit for mandatory injunction. Admitted on 11.08.2003 and first listed only on 02.05.2025, the appeal had remained pending for more than 24 years. With the original counsel for the appellants (Sh. N.D. Achnit) having expired, respondent No.1 having died (no application for impleading his legal representatives), appellants Nos.1-6 unserved, respondent No.2 served through receipt clerk, and respondent Nos.3 and 4 unnotified for want of fresh and correct addresses, the Court held that issuance of fresh notice would be a futile exercise, the parties having lost interest in pursuing the appeal. The appeal was accordingly disposed of, with liberty to the parties to move an appropriate application within 02 months for its revival if so advised; pending application(s), if any, were ordered to stand disposed of. No substantial adjudication on merits was undertaken.

¶1

RSA-1135-2001 (O & M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

201

¶5

Regular Second Appeal No.1135 of 2001 (O & M) Date of decision :-08.08.2025

¶6

Smt. Parkashwati and others

¶7

…..Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mohan Lal and others

¶10

…..Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶12

Present:None.

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

¶14

The appellants/defendants h a ve filed the present appeal against th e concurrent findings of the lear n ed Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff for mandatory injunction was decreed.

¶15

On the last date of hearing i.e. 02.5.2025 following order was

¶16

passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court :-

¶17

“After being ad m itted way back on 11.08.2003, this appeal has been lis t ed today for the first time. It is noticed th a t Sh. N.D. Achnit, Advocate through whom this app e al was filed, has since expired. Registry has also infor m ed that respondent No.1 has since expired whereas counsel who was representing respondent No.2 ha s been appointed as State counsel.Notice fo Resp o ndent Nos.3 and 4 could not be issued for want of co r rect address.

¶18

In view of the af o resaid circumstances, let fresh notices be issued to the appellants, as well as respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶19

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.13 21.22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

RSA-1135-2001 (O & M) 2

¶21

The appellants w ill also move an appropriate application to brin g on record the legal representatives of the d eceased respondent No.1; and will also furnish the l a test and correct addresses of respondent Nos.3 and 4 .

¶22

Adjourned to 08. 0 8.2025.”

¶23

The office r	eport has been rece ived as follows :-
Appellants No.1 to 6	Unserved with th reside at thegiven e report that no such persons address.
Responden t No.1	Already died.N received sofar. o CM for impleading LRs is
Responden t No.2	Served through re ceipt clerk.
Responden ts No.3 and 4	Fresh notice for0 counsel did not address in complia 8.8.2025 not issued as learned furnish the fresh and correct nce of order dated 02.5.2025.

¶24

In the aforesaid premise, is s uance of fresh notice to the parties w o uld be a futile exercise. It ap p ears that due to sheer long pendency of the present appeal before this C ourt for a period of more than 24 years, t he parties have lost interest in p u rsuing the same, as no attempt has been m ade by them to contact their coun s el or to engage a new counsel. Be that as it may, in view of t h e foregoing circumstances, the instant a p peal is disposed of , with libert y to the parties, to move an appropria t e application within a period o f 02 months from today for reviving t h e same, if so, advised.

¶25

Copy of this order be sent to t h e parties. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.

¶26

August 08, 2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

¶27

Whether s p eaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether R e portable Yes / No

¶28

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.13 21.22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Parkashwati and Ors. v. Mohanlal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parkashwati and Ors. v. Mohanlal 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

Balbir Singh Since Deceased Thorugh Lrs Vs Jaswant Singh Ghuman and Ors.

Jagroop Singh Gill Vs Avtar Singh

Harpreet Singh Vs Kamal Kishore Yadav and Others

Shri Prakash Alias S Prakash Goswami Vs Arun Kumar Arora and Another

Dharna Bhatia Vs Kapil Bhatia and Another

Shakuntla Devi Vs Ashu Kumar and Ors.