Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Ram Sarup etc. Vs Dalip etc. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Punjab & Haryana HC
2025
Ram Sarup etc. Vs Dalip etc.Ram Sarup etc. v. Dalip etc.

Disposed¶20

Ram Sarup etc. v. Dalip etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Oct 2025RSA/630/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular Second Appeal RSA-630-1997 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 28.10.2025 by Justice Deepak Gupta (oral order). Appellants Ram Sarup and another versus respondents Dalip and others; intra-family dispute among the sons, wife and grandson of Rameshwar. Procedural disposal: counsel for appellants unable to contact clients (12.12.2023), notice issued, appellant No.1 served, appellant No.2 reported expired (appellants son and mother); ex parte respondents appearing through counsel (Himanshu Sea/Kushager Goyal for respondent Nos.1-2; Aayush Bansal for respondent No.3); compromise dated 27.03.2024 with surviving appellant Ram Sarup undertaking to withdraw the appeal; compromise copy and death certificate of Satpal (respondent No.2) placed on record. Disposed of for want of prosecution and on account of compromise. No substantial question of law, no statutory provisions or precedents cited, no quantum. Procedural disposal of limited precedential value.

What did the court decide?

Considering the death of one appellant, the non-appearance of the surviving appellant despite service, and the compromise placed on record, the present appeal is disposed of for want of prosecution and also on account of compromise. ¶20

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Ratio / Principle

Considering the death of one appellant, the non-appearance of the surviving appellant despite service, and the compromise placed on record, the present appeal is disposed of for want of prosecution and also on account of compromise.

Key takeaways

The grounds for disposal as recorded by the Court: one of the appellants has died; the other appellant has not appeared before the Court despite service; and a compromise has been placed on record.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RSA-630-1997 (O&M) | High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh | Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) | Decided 28.10.2025. Ram Sarup & Anr. (appellants) v. Dalip & Ors. (respondents) — a family dispute among the sons, wife and grandson of one Rameshwar. After the appellants' counsel reported (12.12.2023) that he could not contact his clients, notice was issued: appellant No.1 was duly served; notice to appellant No.2 returned with the report that he had since expired, the two appellants being son and mother. The respondents, earlier ex parte, entered appearance through counsel. The parties had compromised on 27.03.2024, the surviving appellant Ram Sarup undertaking to withdraw the appeal; copy of the compromise and a death certificate of Satpal (respondent No.2) were placed on record. HELD: the appeal stands disposed of for want of prosecution and also on account of compromise. No adjudication on merits; no statute or precedent engaged; no monetary amount involved.

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

********

208

RSA-630-1997 (O&M) Date of Decision:28.10.2025

Ram Sarup and Another …..Appellants Vs. Dalip and Others .….Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:None for the appellants.

Mr. Himanshu Se�a, Advocate for Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Aayush Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

On 12.12.2023, Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate appearing for the appellants had informed that he was unable to establish contact with his clients. As such, no�ce was issued to the appellants.

As reported by the registry, no�ce issued to appellant No.1 received back duly served; no�ce issued to appellant No.2 received back with the report that he has since expired. They were son and mother.

Though respondents were earlier ex parte but today Mr. Himanshu Se�a, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

It is informed by learned counsel that it was a dispute among the family members, inasmuch as appellant No.1 and respondent Nos.1 and

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.10.29 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-630-1997 (O&M)

2 are the sons of Rameshwar; whereas appellant No.2 is the wife of Rameshwar. Respondent No.3 is the grandson of appellant No.2.

Learned counsel informs that ma5er has since been compromised amongst the par�es on 27.03.2024 whereby the surviving appellant Ram Sarup had undertaken to withdraw the present appeal bearing No.RSA/630/1997. Learned counsel has also placed on record copy of that compromise as well as death cer�ficate of Satpal (respondent No.2).

Considering the circumstances that one of the appellant has died and the other appellant has not appeared before the Court, despite service and also considering the compromise which has been placed on record, the present appeal is hereby disposed of for want of prosecu�on and also on account of compromise.

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE October 28, 2025 Nee�ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.10.29 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
On 12.12.2023, Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate for the appellants, informed the Court he was unable to establish contact with his clients; notice was accordingly issued to the appellants.¶12
Prior proceeding
Registry report: notice to appellant No.1 received back duly served; notice to appellant No.2 received back with the report that he has since expired; the two appellants were son and mother.¶13
Prior proceeding
Respondents were earlier ex parte; on the date of hearing counsel put in appearance for respondent Nos.1 and 2.¶14
Prior proceeding
Learned counsel informed the Court that the matter was a dispute among family members; the statement that appellant No.1 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of Rameshwar begins in this paragraph and continues on the next page.¶15
Prior proceeding
Continuation of counsel's statement across the page break: appellant No.2 is the wife of Rameshwar, and respondent No.3 is the grandson of appellant No.2.¶18
Prior proceeding
Learned counsel informed that the matter stood compromised amongst the parties on 27.03.2024, whereby the surviving appellant Ram Sarup undertook to withdraw appeal RSA/630/1997.¶19
Prior proceeding
Learned counsel placed on record copy of the compromise and the death certificate of Satpal (respondent No.2).¶19

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Ram Sarup and Another¶5
Akshay Jain
respondent
Dalip and Others¶5
Himanshu Sea, Kushager Goyal, Aayush Bansal

Coram

AI extract

Deepak Guptaauthor¶6

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Punjab & Haryana HC
Decided on: 28 Oct 2025 · October
Registered: 28 Feb 1997
Case no.: RSA/630/1997
CNR: PHHC010412071997
Bench: Deepak Gupta
Disposal: DISPOSED OF
Case type: RSA

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Deepak Gupta

Vijay Kumar Vs Pawan Kumar and Ors.
27 Oct 2025
Lakhmi Chand Vs State of Haryana & Ors.
27 Oct 2025
Khushi Mohd. Vs Harjit Kaur
27 Oct 2025
(O&M) Ramesh Kumar Vs Ishwar Singh
28 Oct 2025
(O&M) Balwinder Karu and Ors. Vs Surjit Kaur and Ors.
28 Oct 2025
Municipal Committee Vs Juma Khan
28 Oct 2025

Cite this judgement

Ram Sarup etc. v. Dalip etc., RSA/630/1997 (P&H), decided on 28 October 2025.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Procedural history7

On 12.12.2023, Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate for the appellants, informed the Court he was unable to establish contact with his clients; notice was accordingly issued to the appellants.
Registry report: notice to appellant No.1 received back duly served; notice to appellant No.2 received back with the report that he has since expired; the two appellants were son and mother.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Deepak Gupta

Parties & counsel