Maghar Singh and Ors. Vs Mahla Singh and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Maghar Singh and Ors. Vs Mahla Singh and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of for want of prosecution/non-appearance, with liberty to the parties to move an appropriate application within 02 months for reviving it, if so advised; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Regular Second Appeal pending since 1998, in which appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 have died, the surviving appellant and both respondents are unrepresented, and no counsel for the parties appears, should be disposed of for want of prosecution, with liberty to revive.

Court's answer

Given that appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 have died, appellant No. 3 and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are served but unrepresented, and no counsel appears, issuance of fresh notice to appellant No. 3, the LRs of appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 4, and the respondents would be a futile exercise.

Ratio / Principle

Due to the appeal having remained pending before this Court for more than 26 years, the parties have lost interest in pursuing it and made no attempt to contact or engage counsel.

Key takeaways

In view of the foregoing circumstances, the instant appeal is disposed of, with liberty to the parties to move an appropriate application within a period of 02 months from the date of decision for reviving the appeal, if so advised; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RSA-695-1998 (O&M), High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (Nidhi Gupta J., oral), decided 25.07.2025: a 1998 Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment/decree dated 20.2.1998 of the Additional District Judge, Bathinda (which had allowed the plaintiffs' appeal and set aside the 15.5.1997 decree of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bathinda) was disposed of without substantive adjudication after more than 26 years' pendency. Appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were reported dead, appellant No. 3 and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were served but unrepresented, and the appellants' former counsel (Mr. Atma Singh Cheema, Advocate) had passed away; no counsel for either side attended. The Court held fresh notices would be a futile exercise and disposed of the appeal with liberty to the parties to seek revival by appropriate application within 02 months; pending applications were likewise disposed of. No statutes or precedent cases are cited and no quantum is involved.

RSA-695-1998 (O & M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

201

Regular Second Appeal No. 6 95 of 1998 (O & M) Date of decision :-25.07.2025

Maghar Singh and others

…..Appellants

Versus

Mahla Singh and another

…..Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:None.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

The appellants/defendants h ave filed the present appeal against t h e judgment and decree date d 20.2.1998 passed by the learned A dditional District Judge, Bathi n da whereby the appeal filed by the pl a intiffs has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 15.5.199 7 passed by Additional Civil Ju d ge (Sr. Divn.), Bathinda has been set a side.

On the last date i.e. 07.2.2 0 25, the following order was

passed :-

“On the last da t e of hearing i.e. 13.09.2024, following order has b een passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court:-

"Learne d counsel appearing for the appellants sta t es that Mr. Atma Singh Cheema, Adv o cate who had entered appearance on behalf of the appellants in this case, has since unfortunately passed away. It is f urther submitted that a communication addressed to the appellants through registe r ed cover has been received

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.28 17.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-695-1998 (O & M)

2

back undeliver e d. In view of the same, she pleads no instr u ctions.

Let notic e of the appeal be issued to the appellants, r eturnable for 18.11.2024."

Pursuant ther e to, as per office report, notices issued to res p ondents No. 1 and 2 have been received back d u ly served, however, none has put in appearance on their behalf. Further, notices issued to appellants No. 1, 2 and 4 have been received back with the report 'died'; whereas notice issued to appellant No. 3 has been received back served through his son.

In the interes t of justice, adjourned to 25.07.2025, to await a ppearance on behalf of the appellants.” As per office report, appell a nts No.1, 2 and 4 have died and appellant No.3 has been serv e d, however, there is no represent a tion on his behalf. Respond e nts No.1 and 2 have been served, h o wever there is no representatio n on their behalf as well.

The matter pertains to the y e ar 1998, yet learned counsel for the p a rties are also not appearing.

In the aforesaid premise, issuance of fresh notice to appellant No.3 or the LRs of appellants N o.1, 2 and 4 as well as to the resp o ndents would be a futile exer c ise. It appears that due to sheer lo n g pendency of the present ap p eal before this Court for a period of more than 26 years, the parties h ve lost interest in pursuing the same, as no attempt has been mad e by them to contact their counsel or to engage a new counsel.

Be that as it may, in view of the foregoing circumstances, the insta n t appeal is disposed of , with li b erty to the parties, to move

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.28 17.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-695-1998 (O & M) 3

an appro p riate application within a peri o d of 02 months from today

for revivi n g the same, if so, advised.

Pending application(s), if an y , shall stands disposed of.

July 25, 2 025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

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

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.28 17.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document