First appeal dismissed for want of prosecution as the appellant, though duly served with notice, failed to appear or instruct counsel.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-1503-2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.05.2026
Mahabir @ Mahavir
......Appellant
Vs.
Surjeet and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: None for the appellant.
Respondents No.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 09.01.2015.
Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Co.
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)
01.05.2026 Virender
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.05.02 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Mahabir @ Mahavir
Surjeet and others
Sudeepti Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
