(O&M) Ajit Singh v. Inder Parkash Aggarwal.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2025RSA/3551/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: ejectment suit decreed; concurrent findings; Trial Court affirmed by Appellate Court; appeals disposed of as infructuous; no representation for appellant; notice returned unserved; appellant not residing at given address; possession of shop handed over to respondent; non-prosecution; High Court, Chandigarh; DEEPAK GUPTA, J (ORAL); 18th November, 2025; speaking/reasoned Yes; reportable No.

What did the court decide?

Since nobody put in appearance on behalf of the appellant and possession had already been handed over, the appellant is no longer interested in pursuing the appeals. ¶¶29

(O&M) Ajit Singh Vs Inder Parkash Aggarwal. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

�� 

¶2

��

¶3

��118^th November, 2025

�� !"��

�#$%��$&'(��

��55*00,&%��

4��

�&)*+��,+-,.(��'',+/,0�

��.5�&)&%�

�� !"��

�#$%��$&'(��

��55*00,&%��

4��

�&)*+��,+-,.(��'',+/,0�

¶15

��.5�&)&%�

¶16

��"1��2�3��"�� DEEPAK GUPTA

¶17

Present: None for the appellant.

¶18

M r r . Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate fo M r . Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for t h e respondent.

¶19

¶20

DEEPAK GUPTA, J (ORAL)

¶21

Th e re is no representation on beh a lf of the appellant. Same was

¶22

the position on t he previous date of hearing als o .

¶23

Notice sent to the sole appellant r e ceived back unserved with the report that he i s not residing at the given ad d ress. No other address of the appellant is ava i lable.

¶24

REEMA SAINI 2025.11.19 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶25

**�� !"��,&)�6�&&6%)�6,.� 7�7�*

¶26

Apart from the above, these appeals were filed by the appellant against the concurrent findings whereby suit for ejectment filed by the respondent was decreed and the findings given by the Trial Court were affirmed by the Appellate Court.

¶27

On 03.12.2024, learned counsel for respondents were directed to verify ‘as to whether the possession of the shop has been handed over to respondent or not.’

¶28

Today it is informed by learned counsel for the respondents that possession has already been handed over to respondent.

¶29

In view of the facts and circumstance, when nobody has put in appearance on behalf of appellant and the possession has already been handed over, it appears that the appellant is no longer interested in pursuing the appeals. Otherwise also, appeals have become infructuous.

¶30

Disposed of accordingly.

¶31

��

¶32

��

¶33

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) 18^th November, 2025 JUDGE reema Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶34

REEMA SAINI 2025.11.19 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

(O&M) Ajit Singh v. Inder Parkash Aggarwal.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Ajit Singh v. Inder Parkash Aggarwal.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charan Singh (Since Deceased) through Hus Lrs Rajinder Kaur and Others Vs Ut Chandigarh and Others

Market Committee, Ahmedgarh Vs M/S Parkash Chand

Market Committee,Ahmedgarh Vs M/S Parkash Chand Kidar Nath

(O&M) Ajit Singh Vs Inder Parkash Aggarwal.

Karam Singh Vs Sharam Singh

Rajesh Vs Sher Singh