Regular second appeal dismissed in default for want of prosecution as the sole appellant had died years earlier, no legal representatives were brought on record, and neither appellant nor counsel appeared despite notice.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
213 RSA-1056-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision:06.02.2026
Buta Ram …..Appellant Vs.
Atma Singh and Others .….Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:None.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The sole appellant is reported to have expired more than 06-07 years back, as noted in the order dated 01.07.2013, which means that he had expired approximately in 2006-07. Till date, no applica$on has been moved to bring on record his LRs. Even the counsel for the appellant not put in appearance, despite in$ma$on sent to him through his e-mail.
The aforesaid circumstances indicate that appellant is no
longer interested in pursuing the appeal.
Dismissed in default for want of prosecu$on.
In$ma$on be sent to both the par$es at their last known
address.
(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE
February 06, 2026
Nee$ka Tuteja
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.06 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Buta Ram
Atma Singh
Others
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
