Disposed¶25

Punjab National Bank v. Indraj

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Aug 2025RSA/2693/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA 2693-2000 (O&M); Punjab National Bank vs Indraj and another; Punjab and Haryana High Court; disposal of 24-year-pending second appeal for failed service and party disinterest; liberty to revive appeal within 02 months; District Judge Sirsa decree 12.2.2000; future interest 6% per annum from decree till realisation; pendente-lite interest affirmed; Nidhi Gupta (Oral); Present: None.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of with liberty to the parties to move an appropriate application within 02 months for reviving it, if so advised; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶25

Punjab National Bank Vs Indraj — 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 it, if so advised; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the regular second appeal, pending before this Court for more than 24 years amid failed service, death/retirement of parties and counsel, and apparent loss of interest by the parties, should be further pursued or disposed of. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

Due to sheer long pendency of the appeal for more than 24 years, the parties have lost interest in pursuing it, making no attempt to contact their counsel or engage new counsel.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

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

¶24

Key takeaways

In view of the foregoing circumstances, the instant appeal is disposed of, with liberty to the parties to move an appropriate application within 02 months for reviving the same, if so advised; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab National Bank (appellant-plaintiff) v. Indraj and another — Regular Second Appeal No.2693 of 2000 (O&M), pending over 24 years before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. With notices to respondents unreturned, appellant No.1 retired (served via WhatsApp), respondent No.1 reported expired, respondent No.2 refusing to sign, and counsel for both sides reported dead or unavailable, the Court held that issuance of fresh notice would be a futile exercise and disposed of the appeal, granting liberty to move an appropriate application within 02 months for its revival, if so advised; pending applications stood disposed of. The appeal had challenged the District Judge, Sirsa's judgment and decree dated 12.2.2000, whereby the defendant Indraj's appeal was partly allowed (trial decree dated 26.3.1998 modified to entitle the bank to future interest from the date of decree till realisation at 6% per annum, the pendente-lite interest finding being affirmed) and the bank's own appeal dismissed with costs borne by the parties.

¶1

RSA-2693-2000 (O & M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

203

¶5

Regular Second Appeal No.2693 of 2000 (O & M) Date of decision :-05.08.2025

¶6

Punjab National Bank

¶7

…..Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Indraj and another

¶10

…..Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶12

Present:None.

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

¶14

The appellant-plaintiff has fi l ed the present regular second appeal ag a inst the judgment and decree d ated 12.2.2000 passed by the District J u dge, Sirsa whereby the appeal has been decided as follows :-

¶15

“….in this view of the m atter, the appeal preferred by the defendant Indraj is partly allowed and impugned judgement and decree d ated 26.3.1998 passed by the learned trial judge are modified to the extent that the plaintiff bank shall be entitled to future interest i.e. from the date of decree till realisation at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. However, the finding of the learned trial court r e garding the rate of interest pendente-lite are affir m ed. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff bank bei n g without merit is, however, dismissed. Parties are l eft to bear their own costs in both the appeals. Decr e e sheets be drawn and records be consigned.”

¶16

On the last date of hearing i .e. 18.7.2024, the co-ordinate

¶17

Bench of t his Court has passed the followin g order :-

¶18

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.06 20.27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

RSA-2693-2000 (O & M)

¶20

¶21

“As per office report, notices issued to the respondents have not b een received back served or otherwise.

¶22

Let fresh noti c es be issued again to the respondents as well a s their respective counsel for 04.12.2024.

¶23

Notices be als o sent to concerned District Judge asking to ensure t he service of the parties.” The office report has been rec e ived to the effect that appellant No.1 has b een retired from service, howeve r , served through whatsapp and learned c o unsel Mr. P.K. Dutt, Advocate has been duly served; respondent No.1 is re p orted to have expired; and respo n dent No.2 accepted the notice but refus e d to append signatures. It is f u rther reported that Mr. Navin Mahajan, A dvocate for the respondent has e x pired.

¶24

In the aforesaid premise, iss u ance 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 pu r suing the same, as no attempt has been made by them to contact their c ounsel or to engage a new counsel.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

August 05, 2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

¶28

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

¶29

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.06 20.27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Punjab National Bank v. Indraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Indraj

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

Imarati Vs Mahabir Singh and Ors.

Kalindi Harnal and Another Vs Sushant Sharma and Another

Jaspreet Singh and Others Vs Nishant Kumar Yadav Land Acquisition Collector and Another

Suman and Ors. Vs Neeraj and Ors.

Vijender Malik and Others Vs Pardeep Kumar and Another

Priya Chaudhary Vs Chander Bhan Singh and Another