Disposed¶18

Surjit Singh (Deceased) through Lrs v. Kirosta Yadav

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Oct 2025RSA/6291/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA-6291-2016 (O&M); Punjab and Haryana High Court; Nidhi Gupta J.; second appeal disposed of for non-prosecution; LRs of deceased appellant unrepresented on 19.04.2023 and 09.01.2025; appellant counsel expired; fresh notices unserved; office report dated 13.10.2025; liberty to revive appeal within 08 weeks; execution of decree stayed since 06.12.2016; specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 07.06.2005; possession; permanent injunction; concurrent findings of courts below; Surjeet Singh (deceased) through LRs v. Smt. Kirosta Yadav.

What did the court decide?

Regular second appeal disposed of with liberty to LRs No. 1 to 3 of the deceased-appellant to move an appropriate application within 08 weeks for reviving the appeal, if so advised; pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ¶18

Surjit Singh (Deceased) through Lrs Vs Kirosta Yadav — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Due to sheer long pendency of the second appeal before this Court for more than 09 years, the LRs of the appellant have lost interest in pursuing the same; it is therefore clear that LRs No. 1 to 3 of the deceased-appellant are not seriously interested in pursuing the present matter, and issuance of fresh notices to them would be a futile exercise.

¶17

Key takeaways

The instant regular second appeal is disposed of, with liberty to LRs No. 1 to 3 of the deceased-appellant to move an appropriate application within 08 weeks from the date of the order for reviving the same, if so advised.ratio¶18
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Nidhi Gupta, J., oral), RSA-6291-2016 (O&M), decided 16.10.2025 — Second appeal by the LRs of deceased defendant-appellant Surjeet Singh against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing respondent-plaintiff Smt. Kirosta Yadav's suit for possession by way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 07.06.2005 with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Execution of the decree stood stayed since the Predecessor Bench's order dated 06.12.2016. The LRs were un-represented on 19.04.2023 and 09.01.2025; their counsel was reported to have expired on 09.01.2025; fresh notices issued to LRs No. 1 to 3 returned unserved (office report dated 13.10.2025) with the report that they were not residing at the given address. Holding that, after more than 09 years' pendency, the LRs had lost interest and were not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal, the Court disposed of the appeal with liberty to LRs No. 1 to 3 to move an appropriate application within 08 weeks for its revival, if so advised; pending applications stood disposed of. No issue on merits was decided; no statute or precedent was cited.

¶1

RSA-6291-2016 (O&M) -1-

¶2

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

¶3

227 RS A -6291-2016 (O&M)

¶4

Dat e of Decision: 16.10.2025

¶5

Surjeet Si n gh (deceased) through his LRs .… Appellant(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Kirosta Yadav .... Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶9

Present: - None for the LRs of deceased - appellant.

¶10

Mr. NK Chhokar, Advocate f o r the respondent.

¶11

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

The defendant-appellant (sin c e deceased) through his LRs is in second appeal against the concurrent judgment rendered by both the Courts be l ow whereby the suit for p o ssession by way of specific performan c e of Agreement to Sell dated 07.06.2005 with consequential relief of p e rmanent injunction filed by th e respondent-plaintiff has been decreed.

¶13

The matter pertains to the ye a r 2016 and notice of motion in the presen t appeal was issued by the Predecessor Bench of this Court vide order date d 06.12.2016 and simultaneous l y, execution of the decree was ordered to be stayed. Perusal of the order- s heets reveal that on the last 02 dates of h earing being 19.04.2023 and 09.01.2025, the LRs of the deceased- a ppellant had gone un-represent e d. On the last date of hearing i.e. 09.01. 2 025, when this case was listed f or hearing, learned counsel for the respon d ent had informed that learned c ounsel representing the LRs of the appell a nt has expired. Accordingly, f resh notice was ordered to be issued to t h e LRs of the appellant.

¶14

RISHU KATARIA 2025.11.07 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶15

RSA-6291-2016 (O&M) -2-

¶16

Pursuant thereto, as per o f fice report dated 13.10.2025, notices iss u ed to LRs No. 1 to 3 of the deceased-appellant have been received b a ck unserved with the report t h at they are not residing at the given addr e ss.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid pre m ise, issuance of fresh notices to the LRs N o . 1 to 3 of the deceased-appell a nt would be a futile exercise. It appears th a t due to sheer long pendenc y of the present second appeal before thi s Court for a period of more t han 09 years, the LRs of the appellant h ave lost interest in pursuing th e same, as no attempt has been made by t h em to contact their counsel or to engage a new counsel. It is, therefore, c lear that the LRs No. 1 to 3 o f the deceased-appellant are not seriously i n terested in pursuing the present matter.

¶18

Be that as it may, the ins t ant regular second appeal is disposed of, with liberty to LRs No. 1 to 3 of the deceased-appellant, to move an a p propriate application within a p eriod of 08 weeks from today for revivin g the same, if so, advised.

¶19

Pending application(s), if any , shall also stand disposed of.

¶20

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

¶21

Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶22

RISHU KATARIA 2025.11.07 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Surjit Singh (Deceased) through Lrs v. Kirosta Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjit Singh (Deceased) through Lrs v. Kirosta Yadav

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

Darshana Vs Ram Avtar and Ors.

Dheeraj Vs Yogendra Tripathi and Anr.

Amar Pati etc. Vs Mange Ram

Naresh Kumar Vs Om Singh

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nirmala Devi and Ors.

Gurpreet Singh Vs Paramjit Kaur and Others