Dismissed¶¶31

Gurdev Singh & Ors. v. Ravi Kumar Soi

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jan 2026CR/4913/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of revision petition for non-prosecution; vacation of stay of dispossession dated 28.07.2014 for non-payment of rent; landlord-tenant arrears claimed from 2002; no rent received since 2020; petitioners absent and counsel without instructions; CR-4913-2014 (O&M); Gurdev Singh and Ors v. Ravi Kumar Soi; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Alka Sarin, J.; pending applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners appeared not to be interested in pursuing the present petition: served petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 did not appear, petitioner No. 4 could not be served, and counsel for the petitioners had received no instructions from them after 2020. ¶¶29

Gurdev Singh & Ors. Vs Ravi Kumar Soi — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

242

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR-4913-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.01.2026

¶4

Gurdev Singh and Ors ... Petitioners Versus Ravi Kumar Soi ... Respondent

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶6

Present : Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶7

None for the respondent.

¶8

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

¶9

The present revision petition pertains to the year 2014. On 27.08.2025 the following order was passed :

¶10

“ On 14.11.2024 the following order was passed :

¶11

“None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners

¶12

despite the matter being called twice since morning.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out to the order dated 28.07.2014 vide which dispossession of the petitioners from the property in dispute was ordered to be stayed subject to the payment of arrears of rent within a week and regular payment of rent in advance every month thereafter. On 24.04.2015 the following order was passed:

¶14

“CM No. 23686-CII of 2014

¶15

ANKUR GOYAL 2026.01.15 08:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶16

CR-4913-2014 (O&M)

¶17

--2--

¶18

The tenants seeks for extension of time for payment of rent which was directed to be paid within a period of three weeks from the date of the order which was passed on 28.07.2014. The petitioners says that the status as tenant was denied and the claim of rent is made from the year 2002 which is a

¶19

huge financial burden. They seek for three weeks time to make the compliance. The order passed does not set down any condition for noncompliance and therefore, I will not find any fetter to extend the period although the counsel appearing for the respondent has a very serious objections for extension of time. I allow for three weeks further time for making the payment of the entire arrears as due from 01.11.2002. If amount is not paid to the respondent within the time stipulated, the order of stay will stand vacated and the landlord will be at liberty to apply for the delivery in accordance with law. Application is disposed of.

¶20

CR-4913-2014 Adjourned to 01.09.2015, for arguments.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent states that the said order has also not been complied with till date.

¶22

List on 20.01.2025.

¶23

To be shown in the urgent list.”

¶24

ANKUR GOYAL 2026.01.15 08:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶25

CR-4913-2014 (O&M)

¶26

--3--

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners today states that after 2020 he has not received any instructions from the petitioners.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent categorically states that no rent has been received by the landlord-respondent since 2020. In view thereof, the stay order dated 28.07.2014 stands vacated. Let notices be issued to the petitioners returnable 14.01.2026. ”

¶29

As per office report, notices issued to petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 stand duly served however none has put in appearance on their behalf. Petitioner No.4 remains unserved with the report that she was not found residing at the given address. There is no other address available with the Court for effecting service of petitioner No.4 except the one mentioned in the memo of parties and in the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Today again, Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate reiterates that he has no instructions. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in pursuing the present petition.

¶30