05.202 Jawahar L har Lal v. Pushpinde pinder Kumar

plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurren rrent judgments and decrees rendered both the Cou Courts below whereby the suit for declaration and p nd permanent injunction was dismissed.

2. The matter perta pertains to the year 2015 and notice in the main appea ppeal is yet to be issued.

3. Perusal of the o the order-sheet(s) reveals that since the inception of p of present second appeal, the same was repeatedly ad ly adjourned either on account of non-appearance on on behalf of the appellant i.e. on 05.08.2019, 25.0

25.09.2023, 23.02.2024 and

04.09.2024; or at the the request of learned counsel for the appellant on 0 n 02 dates i.e. on 07.05.2024 and 14.01.2025 (last da st date of hearing). VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.13 12.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-885-2019 2

4. Today, in the fi e first round of hearing, Mr. Supneet Singh, Advoca vocate for Mr. PS Dhaliwal, Advocate had appeared ared on behalf of the appellant and sought a pass-ove over. However, in the second round none has put in a t in appearance on behalf of the appellant.

5. A bare reading o ng of the above facts shows that the appellant has ex exhibited an utterly casual attitude in his pursuit o uit of the present litigation. It is to be appreciated that v hat very valuable public time of the Court has been been expended in affording opportunities to the ap e appellant in the interest of justice. On the other ther hand, the appellant has adopted an utterly casu casual and careless approach. It is clear that neith either the appellant nor his counsel is seriously i ly interested in pursuing the present matter. Thus, other option except t us, this Court is left with no pt to dismiss present second appeal, for non-prosecu secution.

6. Ordered accordin ordingly.

7. Pending applicat lication(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.” Thereafter, the applicant- -appellant has moved an application cation bearing CM-11312-C-2025 fo 025 for restoration of the main appeal. O al. On 17.9.2025, the following ord ng order was passed in the said application cation :- “Prayer in this this application filed under Order XLI Rule 19 rea read with Section 151 CPC is for restoration of the m e main appeal (RSA-885-2019) which was dismissed sed for non-prosecution vide order dated 12.08.2025

025. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.13 12.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-885-2019 3 Heard. For reasons mentioned application which is su is supported by an affidavit of learned counsel for th same is allowed; and t r the applicant-appellant, the nd the main appeal is ordered to be restored to its o its original number, subject to costs of ₹30,000/- to be o be deposited by the appellant within a period of 02 f 02 weeks from today in the Savings Bank Account ount under the name "Punjab State Legal Services ices Authority-Disaster Relief Fund" bearing Accoun count No. 44426937384, IFSC Code: SBIN0014656, S 6, State Bank of India, Sector- 68, SAS Nagar for 20 r 2025 to be used for '2025 Floods Relief in the Stat State of Punjab'. Subject to compl ompliance, Registry is directed the main appea final hearing on

11.05.2026.” Today, learned counsel app el appearing on behalf of the applicant- -appellant submits that despite re pite repeated telephonic calls and messages s ages sent to the applicant-appellant ellant informing him about the order dated r dated 17.9.2025 and requiring him to him to comply with the condition regarding d rding deposit of costs of ₹30,000/-, t , the applicant-appellant has neither res er responded to the communication ications nor taken any steps to comply wit ly with the aforesaid order. Heard. A perusal of the record revea reveals that the conduct of the applicant- -appellant throughout has remai remained wholly negligent and casual. The al. The main appeal itself was dismisse ismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated r dated 12.8.2025 after this Court no urt noticed repeated instances of non-appear appearance and lack of diligence on ce on the part of the appellant. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.13 12.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-885-2019 4 Despite the ite the indulgence shown by this Co is Court by restoring the appeal vide order order dated 17.9.2025, the restorati storation was consciously made conditional itional upon deposit of costs of ₹30 ₹30,000/- within a stipulated period of tw d of two weeks. The condition imposed by t by this Court was to balance equities, to ies, to compensate for wastage of va of valuable judicial time and to ensure serio re seriousness on the part of the litigan litigant while seeking restoration of proceed roceedings earlier dismissed for non or non-prosecution. Compliance with such such condition was, therefore, mand mandatory and formed the very basis upon upon which the restoration had been g been granted. However, despite lapse of sub of substantial time, the applicant- appellant h llant has failed to comply with the sa the said order. Not only this, as stated by le d by learned counsel himself, the app e applicant-appellant is not even responding nding to repeated communications m tions made by his own counsel. Such condu conduct leaves no manner of doubt t doubt that the applicant-appellant is not intere t interested in pursuing the present app nt appeal. It is well settled that a litigan litigant who seeks equitable and discretiona etionary relief from the Court must must approach the Court with diligence a ence and bona fides. A party cannot annot repeatedly seek indulgence from the the Court and thereafter continue ntinue to remain negligent and ferent indifferent towards compliance of judicial orders. Judicial proceeding eedings cannot be permitted to remain emain pending indefinitely at the instance o nce of litigants who exhibit compl complete disregard towards the process of l ess of law and orders passed by the Co the Court. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.13 12.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-885-2019 5 It is further pertinent to not to note that the present second appeal pert al pertains to the year 2015 and even n even notice in the appeal has not yet been is en issued on account of the repeated peated defaults attributable solely to the appe e appellant. Valuable judicial time has me has already been consumed in repeatedly atedly accommodating the applicant icant-appellant and restoring the appeal once al once despite earlier dismissal for no for non-prosecution. In the considered opinion of on of this Court, the above facts clearly dise ly disentitle the appellant from any fur ny further indulgence. Accordingly, the main appeal s ppeal stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any if any, shall also stand disposed of. , 2026 May 11, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.13 12.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document