Huda vs Sushila Yadav
2023 Latest Caselaw 709 P&H

206         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                              IOIN-RSA-4780-2002 in/and
                                              RSA No.4780 of 2002 (O&M)
                                              Date of Decision: 13.01.2023

Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and another
                                                           .....Petitioners
                              Versus
Sushila Yadav
                                                      ........Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT


Present:    None.


RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (ORAL)

IOIN-RSA-4780-2002

The main appeal was admitted on 19.02.2004. On 09.11.2022,

the case was put up before this Court as no application for brining on record

the legal representatives of the sole respondent was filed. Therefore, vide

order dated 09.11.2022 passed by this Court, four weeks time was granted

to the appellant to file the necessary application for brining on record legal

representatives of the respondent.

Now again office note has been put up by the Registry as no

application for brining on record the legal representatives of the sole

respondent has been filed.

In view of the above, the main appeal is taken up on board for

hearing.

IOIN stands disposed of.

Main Appeal

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated

18.07.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Karnal partly upholding the

1 of 2

RSA No.4780 of 2002 (O&M) --2--

judgment dated 02.02.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Karnal,

whereby the suit for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent

injunction was dismissed.

As per the office report, the sole respondent has since expired.

Neither any application for brining on record the legal representatives of the

sole respondent has been filed, nor any one is present on behalf of the

appellant. Earlier also, there had been adjournments sought by the counsel

for the appellant. It appears that the appellant has lost its interest in the case.

Further, no decree can be passed against a dead person.

Dismissed.

The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed

of as such.

(RAJBIR SEHRAWAT) JUDGE 13.01.2023 sandeep Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2