Devendari Vs Satish — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Devendari Vs Satish — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the regular second appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the regular second appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution in view of the appellant's repeated non-appearance, her counsel pleading 'no instructions', non-deposit of the Rs.5000/- costs, and her apparent loss of interest in pursuing the appeal.

Court's answer

The instant regular second appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution: the appeal has pended for around 07 years, the costs of Rs.5000/- imposed on 18.12.2024 were never deposited, counsel pleaded 'no instructions' on 11.09.2025, notice served through the appellant's husband went unattended despite the case being called twice, and the appellant is not seriously interested in pursuing the matter, so fresh notice would be futile.

Ratio / Principle

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal — RSA-4862-2019 (O&M), Devendari v. Satish (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh) — dismissal for non-prosecution. Appeal against judgment of reversal dated 14.05.2019 of the learned Additional District Judge, Palwal, whereby the plaintiff's first appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the trial Court's judgment and decree dated 13.01.2017 and partly decreeing the suit for specific performance by way of possession and permanent injunction as a consequential relief. Appeal of 2019 listed 05 times; adjourned on 04 dates at the request of the appellant's counsel and once (10.10.2023) for her non-appearance. Co-ordinate Bench order dated 18.12.2024 adjourned the case to 11.09.2025 subject to Rs.5000/- costs to be deposited with the High Court Lawyers' Welfare Fund, clarifying that pendency of the appeal would not impede continuation of execution proceedings; costs never deposited. On 11.09.2025 counsel for the appellant pleaded 'no instructions' and notice was issued to the appellant; notice was received back served through her husband, yet none appeared despite the case being called twice. Held: the appellant, who over around 07 years had made no attempt to contact her counsel, was not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal and fresh notice would be a futile exercise; appeal dismissed for non-prosecution and pending application(s), if any, disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta, J., oral, 24.03.2026.)

RSA-4862-2019 (O&M) -1-

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

113 RS A -4862-2019 (O&M) Dat e of Decision: 24.03.2026

Devendari .… Appellant

Versus

Satish .... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - None.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The appellant-defendant is in second appeal against the judgment o f reversal dated 14.05.2019 p a ssed by the learned Additional District Ju d ge, Palwal whereby the appeal f iled by the plaintiff/respondent was partl y allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13.01.201 7 passed by the learned trial Court; and suit for specific performan c e by way of possession an d permanent injunction as a consequen t ial relief thereof filed by the r espondent-plaintiff was partly decreed.

The matter pertains to the ye a r 2019 and notice is yet to be issued. Pe r usal of the order-sheet(s) reve a ls that since the inception, the present ap p eal was listed for hearing 05 ti m es, out of which on 04 dates of hearing i.e . on 28.02.2024, 13.08.2024, 18 . 12.2024 and 11.09.2025 matter was adjou r ned at the request of learned c o unsel for the appellant; and on one date i. e . 10.10.2023, the present appe a l was adjourned on account of non-appea r ance on behalf of the appellant. On 18.12.2024, when this case

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

RSA-4862-2019 (O&M)

-2-

listed for hearing, following order has bee n passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Co u rt:-

“Present appeal pertains to the year 2019 and the same has repeatedly been a dj ourned on request of counsel for the appellant. Today agai n a request for an adjournment has been made on behalf o f the arguing counsel for the appellant on the ground that h e is in personal difficulty.

Though no ground is m ade out to further adjourn the case, however in the inte r est of justice, adjourned to 11.09.2025 subject to paym e nt of Rs.5000/- as costs to be deposited with the High Cour t Lawyers’ Welfare Fund.

It is made clear that p endency of the present appeal shall not be an impedime n t in the continuation of the execution proceedings, if any, before the Court concerned.”

As per office report, costs of ₹ 5000/- in terms of order dated 18.12.202 4 reproduced above, has not bee n deposited by the appellant till date. Furt h er, perusal of the order-sheet r eveals that on the last date of hearing i.e . 11.09.2025, learned counsel f o r the appellant had pleaded ‘no instruction s ’ in the matter, accordingly, notice to the appellant was ordered to b e issued.

Pursuant thereto, office repor t 19.03.2026 has been received as per wh i ch notice issued to the sole ap p ellant has been received back served thr o ugh her husband, but despit e that today, none has put in appearanc e on behalf of the appellant, des p ite the case having been called twice.

In view of the aforesaid pre m ise, issuance of fresh notice to the appell a nt would be a futile exercise. It a ppears that due to pendency of

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

RSA-4862-2019 (O&M) -3-

the presen t second appeal before this C o urt for a period of around 07 years, the a ppellant has lost interest in p u rsuing the same, as no attempt has been m ade by her to contact her counsel. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant i s not seriously interested in purs u ing the present matter.

Accordingly, the instant regular second appeal is dismissed

for non-prosecution.

Pending application(s), if any , shall also stand disposed of.

24.03.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.