Rajiv Kumar Sharma vs Bimla Etc
2024 Latest Caselaw 19331 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajiv Kumar Sharma vs Bimla Etc on 4 November, 2024

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142879




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH
101
                                        RSA-2800-1993 (O&M)
                                        Date of decision: 04.11.2024

Rajiv Kumar Sharma
                                                                     ...Appellant
                                    VERSUS
Smt. Bimla Rani (since deceased) through her LRs and others

                                                                   ...Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

Present :-    Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the appellant.

                              *****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The instant appeal has been preferred against the concurrent

judgment and decree of the Civil Courts whereby the suit of the respondent-

plaintiff for rendition of account was allowed and the appeal against the

same was dismissed. Both the judgments are challenged in the present

appeal on the ground of the same being contrary to law and the evidence on

record.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends

that he is no more in contact with the appellant and that he also made an

effort to locate the appellant at the address mentioned in the appeal. It was

found that the appellant does not reside at the said address any more. He

contends that as per the evidence recorded before the trial Court and the age

reflected in the testimony of the appellant, he would already be more than 82

years of age as on date, in case he still survives. It is also pointed out that the

matter pertains to the year 1981 and in the event of any process of rendition

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142879

101 RSA-2800-1993 (O&M)

of account being initiated, the same may not be possible at this stage since

the record would be more than 40 years old and may not be traceable.

It is also noticed by this Court that Ms. Pooja Chopra,

Advocate, was appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and she last

appeared on 29.07.2009. Thereafter, she has not been appearing on behalf

of the said respondents, as she had pleaded that she had no instructions to

defend the present appeal.

Learned counsel for respondent No.4-Mr. K.L. Suneja,

Advocate, was also available on 12.10.2009, however, thereafter he has also

not entered appearance. It has been reported by the Registry that

membership of Mr. K.L. Suneja, Advocate, has since then been removed as

he is no more an active member of the Bar Association.

Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances and

noticing that the appeal relates to the year 1993 and the same has remained

pending for the last more than 30 years. It appears that the appellant as well

as respondents would no more be interested in pursuing the instant appeal.

The present Regular Second Appeal is thus disposed of at this

stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, with liberty to the

appellant to file an application for seeking revival of the same, in case the

representatives of the respondent-plaintiff file any application for

preparation of final decree or for execution of decree.

All pending civil misc. application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

                                                 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
04.11.2024                                               JUDGE
Mangal Singh
         Whether speaking/reasoned :     Yes/No
         Whether reportable        :     Yes/No


                                        2 of 2