Disposed¶26

Hoshiar Singh v. Gram Panchayat

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jul 2025RSA/2292/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA-2292-1998 (O & M); Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; Nidhi Gupta J.; Hoshiar Singh v. Gram Panchayat Village Bhulran; permanent injunction; demolition of wall; Additional District Judge Sangrur judgment and decree dated 13.8.1998; Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Malerkotla decree dated 24.10.1996 set aside; death of sole appellant; LRs lost interest; pendency over 26 years; appeal disposed of; liberty to LRs to seek revival within 02 months; pending applications disposed; decided 23.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of, with liberty to the LRs of the deceased-appellant to move an appropriate application within 02 months for reviving the same, if so advised; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶26

Hoshiar Singh Vs Gram Panchayat — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the regular second appeal, pending for more than 26 years, should be disposed of in view of the death of the sole appellant and the failure of his legal representatives to pursue the matter.

¶25

Court's answer

Issuance of fresh notice to the legal representative(s) of the deceased-appellant would be a futile exercise, as the LRs have lost interest in pursuing the appeal after more than 26 years of pendency.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

In view of the foregoing circumstances, the instant appeal is disposed of.

¶26

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the LRs of the deceased-appellant to move an appropriate application within a period of 02 months for reviving the appeal, if so advised.ratio¶29
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal No.2292 of 1998 (O & M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Nidhi Gupta J., oral; decided 23.07.2025) — Hoshiar Singh v. Gram Panchayat Village Bhulran. The second appeal challenged the judgment and decree dated 13.8.1998 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, whereby the decree dated 24.10.1996 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Malerkotla — granting the plaintiff permanent injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from demolishing a wall — had been set aside. After more than 26 years' pendency, the sole appellant died; his legal representatives made no attempt to contact counsel or engage new counsel, and the respondent's counsel stated that nothing survived in the matter. Holding fresh notice to the LRs futile, the Court disposed of the appeal, granting the LRs liberty to move an appropriate application within 02 months for reviving it, if so advised; pending applications stand disposed of. The merits of the injunction suit were not decided.

¶1

RSA-2292-1998 (O & M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

213

¶5

Regular Second Appeal No.2292 of 1998 (O & M) Date of decision :-23.07.2025

Hoshiar Singh

…..Appellant

Versus

Gram Panchayat Village Bhulran

¶10

…..Respondent

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶12

Present:None for the appellant.

¶13

Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate f o r the respondent.

¶14

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

¶15

The appellant/plaintiff has filed the present regular second a ppeal against the judgment a nd decree dated 13.8.1998 passed b y the learned Additional Distric t Judge, Sangrur whereby the judgment and decree dated24.10.1996 p assed by the learned Civil Judge (J r . Divn.), Malerkotla in favour of the plaintiff has been set aside.

¶16

On the last date of heari n g, the following order was

¶17

passed b y this Court :-

¶18

“There is no re p resentation on behalf of the appellant.

¶19

Learned cou n sel appearing for the respondent-Gram Pa n chayat submits that since this is an old appeal o f the year 1998, therefore, he is not in touch wit h his client; and prays for issuance of fresh noti c e to the respondent.

¶20

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.25 09.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

¶22

RSA-2292-1998 (O & M)

¶23

In view of the a bove and in the interest of justice, let actual dat e of hearing notices be issued to appellant and the r espondent-Gram Panchayat for 23.07.2025. Regis t ry shall also make an effort to effect service upon both the parties through the SHO of the concerne d area, so that effective steps can be taken to dispose of the matter.” Pursuant to the said order, the office report has been received to the effect that the sole app e llant has died and the sole responde n t has been served through affix a tion.

¶24

Learned counsel appearin g on behalf of respondent submits t hat after issuance of notice by this Court, he has received instructions from the respondent-Gram P a nchayat to the effect that the suit was f iled by the appellant/plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraini n g the respondent-Gram Panc h ayat from demolishing the wall. It is submitted, on instructions, t hat nothing survives in the present m atter and the same, therefore, b e disposed of.

¶25

In the aforesaid premise, iss u ance of fresh notice to the legal rep r esentative(s) of the deceased- a ppellant would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer lo n g pendency of the present appeal b e fore this Court for a period of m ore than 26 years, the LRs of the de c eased-appellant has/have lost i n terest in pursuing the same, as no att e mpt has been made by him/the m to contact the counsel or to engag e a new counsel.