Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh vs Darshan Kaur on 27 April, 2026
RSA-168-2016(O&M)
2016(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
223
1. RSA-168-2016 (O&M)
Manjit Singh .... Appellant
Versus
Darshan Kaur and others .... Respondents
2. COCP-1059-2019 (O&M)
Manjit Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
Darshan Kaur .... Respondent
Date of Decision: 27.04.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: - Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate
for the appellant (in RSA-168--2016).
for the petitioner (in COCP-1059
1059-2019).
Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
Mr. Ankur Pandey, Advocate for
Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 5.
NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. By this common order, aforementioned second appeal as well as the contempt petition are being disposed of as the facts involved therein are similar in nature. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from RSA--168-2016.
2. Defendant No. 4/appellant is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by both District Court RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.27 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-168-2016(O&M) 2016(O&M) -2- whereby the suit for specific performance of Agreement To Sell dated 31.12.2001 filed by plaintiff/respondents No. 3 to 10 was decree decreed.
3. The main second appeal is of the year 2016.
16. Perusal of the order-sheets sheets reveal(s) that notice of motion in the main appeal was issued way back by the Predecessor Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.03.2016 and dispossession of the appellant from the suit land was also 29.03.2016;
stayed.. Thereafter, on the next 03 dates of hearing 14.12.2017. 26.02.2019 and 17.12.2020, the matter was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the appellant; for completion of pleading pleadings;; and at the joint request of learned learned counsel for the parties, respectively. On the last date of hearing i.e. 30.07.2025 when both the aforementioned cases are listed for hearing,, following order has been passed by this Court:
Court:-
"It It is informed by learned counsel for the appellant that learned arned counsel previously representing the appellant has expired.
It is further informed by learned counsel representing respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 has also expired. It is accordingly prayed by respective counsel that notice be issued to respective parties.
In view of above, fresh notice be issued to the appellant.
lant. Notice be also sent through District and Sessions Judge of the concerned District with the direction to ensure the service by making it clear that in case, respondent No.2 is found to have expired, then service may be effected on any adult member of the family.
Adjourned to 27.04.2026.
RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.27 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-168-2016(O&M) 2016(O&M) -3-
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case."
4. Pursuant thereto, following office report dated 23.04.2026,, has been received:-
received:
Service Report (Appellant) ( Sole Appellant Unserved with report as detailed address would be required for effecting service. Service Report (Respondents) ( Respondent No. 1 Represented through Mr. Tejinderbir Singh, Advocate.
Respondent No. 2 Notice received back with the report that respondent has died and respondent's wife and other family members refused to receive notice.
Respondents No. 3 to 5 Represented through Mr. Manuj Nagrtath, Advocate. However, no power of attorney has been filed by ld. counsel till date. Respondent No. 6 Already served. Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 Unserved with report as not residing at the given address.
5. Today, learned counsel appearing for the appellant again reiterated that the learned counsel earlier representing the appellant/petitioner petitioner in aforementioned 02 cases hhas expired; and she is unable to establish contact with the appellant/petitioner. As such, she has pleaded 'no instructions' in the matter.
6. In view of the aforesaid premise, issuance of fresh notice to the appellant would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer long pendency of the present second appeal before this Court for a period of more than 10 1 years, the appellant has lost interest in pursuing the same, as no attempt has been made by him to contact his counsel or to engage a new counsel. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant is not seriously interested in pursuing the present matter.
matter
RISHU KATARIA
2026.04.27 19:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment.
RSA-168-2016(O&M)
2016(O&M) -4-
7. Be that as it may, the main second appeal bearing No. RSA RSA-
168-2016 2016 as well as contempt petition arising therefrom bearing COCP COCP-
1059-2019 2019 are disposed of, with liberty to the appellant/petitioner to move an appropriate application within a period of 06 weeks from today for reviving the same, if so, advised.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
9. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.
27.04.2026
04.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA )
rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.27 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.