Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Singh And Another vs M.C. Amritsar on 22 March, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041899
RSA-2097-1992 [1] 2024:PHHC:041899
109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-2097-1992
Date of decision: 22.03.2024
Harbhajan Singh and another
...Appellants
Versus
Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: None for the appellants.
Mr. Dilsher S. Mann, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is the plaintiffs' appeal against the concurrent findings
of fact. The plaintiffs/appellants had filed a suit for permanent injunction
restraining defendant Nos.2 and 3 from encroaching upon any part of
Gali No.4 towards the west of the house of the plaintiffs. Further prayer
was made in the suit for decree of mandatory injunction against defendant
No.1 directing them to remove encroachment on the said street and
restraining defendant Nos.4 and 5 from transferring any part of the said
gali either to defendant Nos.2 and 3 or to any other person. Defendant
No.1 in the said case was Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and the suit of
the plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgment dated 02.06.1987 and
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041899
RSA-2097-1992 [2] 2024:PHHC:041899
thereafter appeal filed by the present appellants was dismissed by the
Appellate Court vide judgment dated 09.06.1992.
2. On 24.11.1992, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased
to pass the following order:-
"Admitted.
To be heard with RSA No.1809 of 1985.
November 24, 1992 Sd/- Judge"
3. A perusal of the above order would show that no interim
order was passed in the abovesaid appeal and the main appeal was
ordered to be listed along with RSA No.1809 of 1985. The said RSA
No.1809 of 1985 was rendered infructuous vide order dated 03.06.2011.
Relevant portion of said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Harbhajan Singh and Ors Appellants
v.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and
Ors
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.T.S.Chauhan, Advocate for
Mr.A.S.Bakshi, Advocate for the appellants
Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate for
Mr.T.S.Gujral, Advocate for respondent No.1
Ms. Niti Wadhawan, Advocate
for respondent no.2
JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J (Oral)
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 has placed on record a photocopy of the
compromise dated 13.4.2003, arrived at between the parties.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041899
RSA-2097-1992 [3] 2024:PHHC:041899
The same is taken on record as Mark "A".
From the perusal of the compromise, it emerges that
both the parties have decided not to prolong the litigation
and to withdraw their cases.
Mr.T.S.Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants states that he has no instructions in this regard.
There is no reason to doubt the compromise, when it is
filed through a counsel.
However, it is made clear that in case, the averments
made in the compromise Mark "A" are found to be false or
the appellant is not satisfied with the compromise, the
appellants shall be at liberty to revive the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is rendered infructuous.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-(JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
JUDGE
3.6.2011"
4. A perusal of the above order would show that the said appeal
was also filed by Harbhajan Singh and others against the Municipal
Corporation, Amritsar and it was stated that the matter has been
compromised and the said compromise deed was placed on record and
marked as Mark "A" and it was also stated that the parties had decided
not to prolong the litigation and to withdraw their cases.
5. In the present case, vide order dated 03.10.2023, a
Coordinate Bench of this Court had issued notice to the appellants and as
per the report of the Registry, the attorney by whom the present appeal
was filed i.e., Karnail Singh is reported to have died.
6. Although, the case has been called twice but no one has put
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041899
RSA-2097-1992 [4] 2024:PHHC:041899
in appearance on behalf of the appellants. None had appeared on behalf
of the appellants on 03.10.2023 also.
7. Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed
for non-prosecution.
8. Liberty is however granted to the appellants to revive the
present appeal in case any cause survives to them.
9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.
22.03.2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
