Disposed¶30

Trilochan Singh & Ors. v. Sumitra Devi & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jul 2025RSA/3039/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA-3039-2001 (O&M); Tarlochan Singh and others v. Sumitra Devi and others; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; decided 08.07.2025 by Justice Nidhi Gupta; second appeal against Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur decree dated 21.11.2000 reversing Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur decree dated 11.11.1997; appeal disposed of after 24-year pendency owing to counsel's 'no instructions', deaths of appellants No. 1, 2, 4 and respondents No. 1, 2, and unserved respondents No. 3 to 8; liberty to revive within 03 months; no statutory provisions or precedent cases cited.

What did the court decide?

Regular second appeal disposed of with liberty to the appellants or their LRs, if any, to move an appropriate application within 03 months for reviving the same, if so advised; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Trilochan Singh & Ors. Vs Sumitra Devi & Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether, given the death/untraceability of parties, non-service of respondents No. 3 to 8, and the appellants' counsel having no instructions after more than 24 years' pendency, the second appeal should be disposed of rather than kept pending through issuance of fresh notices.

¶26

Court's answer

In the aforesaid premise, issuance of fresh notice to the appellants would be a futile exercise.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

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

¶29

Key takeaways

The instant regular second appeal is disposed of, with liberty to the appellants or their LRs, if any, to move an appropriate application within 03 months for reviving the same, if so advised.ratio¶30
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Nidhi Gupta, J., oral) disposed of RSA-3039-2001 (O&M), Tarlochan Singh and others v. Sumitra Devi and others — a second appeal from the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur's judgment/decree of 21.11.2000 (which had reversed the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur's decree of 11.11.1997) — pending for over 24 years. With counsel for the appellants reporting 'no instructions', appellants No. 1, 2 and 4 and respondents No. 1 and 2 recorded as dead, appellant No. 3 unserved, and respondents No. 3 to 8 un-noticed for want of correct addresses, the Court held fresh notice to the appellants would be futile and disposed of the appeal, granting liberty to the appellants or their LRs to seek revival by application within 03 months; pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

RSA-3039-2001 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE H I GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

206 RS A -3039-2001 (O&M)

¶5

Dat e of Decision: 08.07.2025

¶6

Tarlochan Singh and others .… Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sumitra D e vi and others .... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶10

Present: - Mr. Neeraj Tyagi, Advocate f o r Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate fo r the appellant.

¶11

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Appellants No. 1 to 3/LRs o f defendant No. 1 and appellant No. 4/def e ndant No. 2-Sadhu Singh are in second appeal against the judgment a nd decree dated 21.11.2000, p a ssed by the learned Additional District J u dge, Hoshiarpur, vide whi c h the appeal filed by the plaintiff/re s pondents was allowed reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.11.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpu r .

¶13

On the last date of hearing i.e. 29.04.2025, when this case was listed f or hearing, following order was passed by this Court:- “The matter pertains t o the year 2001 and has come up for hearing after the year 2 003.

¶14

As per office report, no t ice issued to respondents No. 1 and 2 have been received bac k with the report died; whereas notices issued to respondents No. 3 to 8 have been received back unserved for want of co m plete address.

¶15

RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.10 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶16

RSA-3039-2001 (O&M) -2-

¶17

Learned counsel for t h e appellants undertakes to do the needful within in a period of 04 weeks from today.

¶18

Further, learned coun s el for the appellants submits that the matter has come up f or hearing after a long period and due to passage of time , he has lost contact with his clients. Thus, he prays for i s suance of fresh notice to the appellants, as well.

¶19

In view of the above and on furnishing of correct addresses of respondents No . 3 to 8, let actual date o f hearing notices be issued t o the appellants as well as respondents No. 3 to 8 for 0 8.07.2025. Registry shall also make an effort to effect se r vice upon both the aforesaid parties through the SHO o f the concerned area, so that effective steps can be taken to dispose of the matter.

¶20

In the meanwhile, lea r ned counsel for the appellants shall move an appropriate ap p lication for bringing on record the LRs of deceased responde n ts No. 1 and 2 . ”

¶21

Pursuant thereto, notices we r e issued to the appellants and

¶22

service report dated 07.07.2025, reads as u n der:-

¶23

ServiceRe Appellants port (Appellants No.1,2and4	): Died
AppellantN o. 3	Unserved with the givenaddr the report as not residing at ess.
ServiceRe port (Responden	ts):
Responden ts No. 1 and 2	Died. No CM learned couns application has been filed by el for impleading theLRs.
Responden ts No. 3 to 8	Fresh notices Counsel didn respondents. could not be issued as Ld. ot file the correct addresses of

¶24

Today again, learned counsel for the appellants pleaded ‘no

¶25

instruction s ’ in the matter.

¶26

In the aforesaid premise, issuance of fresh notice to appellants would be a futile exercise. It a ppears that due to sheer long pendency o f the present second appeal b e fore this Court for a period of

¶27

RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.10 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶28

RSA-3039-2001 (O&M) -3-

¶29

more than 24 years, the appellants have lo s t interest in pursuing the same, as no atte m pt has been made by them to c o ntact their counsel or to engage a new cou n sel.

¶30

Be that as it may, in view of t h e foregoing circumstances, the instant reg u lar second appeal is disposed of, with liberty to the appellants or their L R s, if any, to move an appropriate application within a period of 03 months from today for reviving the sa m e, if so, advised. Pending application(s), if any , shall stands disposed of.

¶31

08.07.2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

¶32

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶33

RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.10 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Trilochan Singh & Ors. v. Sumitra Devi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trilochan Singh & Ors. v. Sumitra Devi & 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

Preeti Sood Vs Sh. Basant Garg, Ias, Secretary, the Finance Department and Others

Satish Chawla Vs Baldev Krishan

Naseer Ahmed Vs Ashok Kumar Ips, Rewari

Gurmeet Kaur Vs Dr. Sanjiv Puri

Suman and Anr. Vs S.R. Ahlawat and Anr.

Jarnail Singh Vs Gurdev Singh etc.