Dismissed¶21

Manmohan Singh v. Ram Sarup

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jul 2025RSA/3704/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: RSA-3704-2001 (O & M); Manmohan Singh and another vs Ram Sarup; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Nidhi Gupta J.; decision dated 17.07.2025; second appeal dismissed for non-prosecution; appellants unserved / left address; sole respondent reported dead; pendency over 24 years; liberty to file revival application within 02 months; impugned judgment and decree dated 30.5.2001 by Additional District Judge, Ambala allowing Ram Sarup's first appeal; none for appellants; none for respondent; speaking/reportable flags left open.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed for non-prosecution, with liberty to the appellants to move an appropriate application within 02 months for reviving it, if so advised; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶21

Manmohan Singh Vs Ram Sarup — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

RSA-3704-2001 (O & M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

207-I

¶4

Regular Second Appeal No.3704 of 2001 (O & M) Date of decision :-17.07.2025

¶5

Manmohan Singh and another

…..Appellants

Versus

Ram Sarup

…..Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present:None for the appellants.

¶12

None for the respondent.

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

¶14

The appellants (respondent s before the first Appellate Court) a r e in the appeal against the j udgment and decree dated 30.5.200 1 passed by the learned Additi o nal District Judge, Ambala, whereby t he first appeal filed by the resp o ndent-Ram Sarup (appellant before th e first Appellate Court) has bee n allowed.

¶15

The matter pertains to the year 2001.

¶16

As per last order dated 07.4.2025 there was no represent a tion on behalf of any of the parties and actual date of hearing notices were issued to the parties .

¶17

As per office report, both the appellants remain unserved with the report that they have l eft the given address. The sole resp o ndent is reported to be died.

¶18

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.18 16.42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

RSA-3704-2001 (O & M) 2

¶20

In the aforesaid premise, iss u ance of fresh notice to the appellant s would be a futile exercise. I t appears that due to sheer long pen d ency of the present appeal before this Court for a period of more tha n 24 years, the appellants have lost interest in pursuing the same, as n o attempt has been made by t h em to contact their counsel or to eng a ge a new counsel.

¶21

Be that as it may, in view of the foregoing circumstances, the insta n t appeal is dismissed for non-p r osecution, with liberty to the appellant s , to move an appropriate application within a period of 02 months f r om today for reviving the same, if so, advised. Pending application(s), if an y , shall stands disposed of.

¶22

Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No

¶23

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.18 16.42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manmohan Singh v. Ram Sarup

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manmohan Singh v. Ram Sarup

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Chamba Shimla Road (P) Ltd. Vs Tanu Singh

Dhbvn Panchkula and Another Vs Basic India Ltd.

Balwant Vs Ashwani Kumar

Suresh Sharma Alias Suresh Kumar and Another Vs Amit Grewal and Others

Gurbhej Singh and Others Vs Dildar Singh and Others

Gayatri Devi Andors Vs Ashok Kumar