Second appeal dismissed for want of prosecution as the appellant could not be served at any available address and no appearance was made on his behalf.
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.
�RSA-4194-2000 ��������
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-4194-2000 Date of decision: 12.01.2026
Sa�sh Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
M/s Gonda Mal Kulwant Rai and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: None.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
No�ce to Sh. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate has already been sent through email, as reported by the Registry. No�ce sent to the sole appellant is received unserved due to incomplete address. No other address of the appellant is available except the address as men�oned in the memo of par�es, which is the same as was men�oned by him in the plaint.
In these circumstances, the Court is constrained to dispose of the present appeal for want of prosecu�on.
Ordered accordingly.
12.01.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No Whether reportable:Yes/No
YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.12 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Sash Kumar
M/s Gonda Mal Kulwant Rai and another
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
