Ashok Gupta Vs M/S Sas International — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ashok Gupta Vs M/S Sas International — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application within 06 weeks from today for reviving the revision petition, if so advised; pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether fresh notice should be issued to the petitioner — whose counsel had expired and who was reported 'not residing at the given address' — or whether the long-dormant revision petition should be disposed of as it stood.

Court's answer

Issuance of fresh notice to the petitioner would be a futile exercise.

Ratio / Principle

Due to the sheer long pendency of the present revision petition before this Court for a period of more than 16 years, and as no attempt was made by him to contact his counsel or to engage a new counsel, the petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the same.

Key takeaways

It is clear that the petitioner is not seriously interested in pursuing the present matter.ratio¶19
The revision petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application within 06 weeks from today for reviving the same, if so advised.ratio¶20
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Nidhi Gupta, J., oral) — CR-3937-2010 (O&M), decided 23.04.2026. Revision petition by landlord Ashok Gupta against the reversal judgment dated 18.11.2009 of the Appellate Authority, Faridabad, whereby the respondent-tenant M/s SAS International's appeal was allowed and the Rent Controller, Faridabad's judgment dated 31.03.2009 was set aside. The petition had been dismissed in default (18.08.2010), restored (17.03.2011) and adjourned sine die (18.05.2011); the petitioner's counsel C.B. Goel had expired and notice sent to the petitioner returned unserved ('not residing at the given address'). Holding that with pendency exceeding 16 years the petitioner had lost interest and fresh notice would be futile, the Court disposed of the petition with liberty to move an appropriate application within 06 weeks for its revival, if so advised; pending applications stand disposed of.

CR-3937-2010 (O&M) -1-

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

207 CR- 3 937-2010 (O&M)

Dat e of Decision: 23.04.2026

Ashok Gu p ta

.… Appellants

Versus

M/s SAS I n ternational .... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - None.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner/landlord has fi l ed the instant revision petition against th e judgment of reversal dated 18 . 11.2009 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Faridabad where b y the appeal filed by the responden t -tenant was allowed; and th e judgment dated 31.03.2009, passed by t he learned Rent Controller, Far i dabad, was set aside.

The matter pertains to the ye a r 2010 and notice is yet to be issued in t h e same. Perusal of the order–s h eet(s) reveal(s) that vide order dated 18. 0 8.2010 the present petition w a s dismissed in default by the Predecess o r Bench of this Court, on acco u nt of non-appearance on behalf of the peti t ioner. Subsequently, vide orde r dated 17.03.2011, the present revision p e tition was restored to its ori g inal number. Thereafter, vide order dat e d 18.05.2011, the matter w a s adjourned sine die by the Predecess o r Bench, due to repeated requests for adjournment by learned counsel fo r the petitioner. On 25.08.2025, when this case was listed for hearing, f o llowing order has been passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court:-

RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.27 18:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CR-3937-2010 (O&M) -2-

“As reported by th e Registry, Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate, who was represe n ting the petitioner has been informed through e-mail. However, said Mr. C. B . Goel, Advocate has already expired. In these circumstanc e s, let notice of this revision petition be sent to the petiti o ner as well as respondent for 16.02.2026.”

Pursuant thereto, office rep o rt dated 16.04.2026 has been

received w hich indicates that notice iss u ed to the petitioner has been received b a ck unserved with the report ‘no t residing at the given address’.

In view of the aforesaid pre m ise, issuance of fresh notice to the petitio n er would be a futile exercise. I t appears that due to sheer long pendency o f the present revision petition b efore this Court for a period of more than 16 years, the petitioner has lost i nterest in pursuing the same, as no attemp t has been made by him to con t act his counsel or to engage a new coun s el. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner is not seriously interested i n pursuing the present matter.

Be that as it may, the instant r evision petition is disposed of, with libert y to the petitioner to move an a ppropriate application within a period of 0 6 weeks from today for revivin g the same, if so, advised. 6. Pending application(s), if any , shall also stand disposed of.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.27 18:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.