AND HA ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-4565-2015 (O&M) RSA Vikram Sing Singh v. Karnail Sing il Singh
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, any, shall also stand disposed of. 2025
Judgment
M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: - None for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for th e for the respondent. NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The appellant-plaintiff is in in second appeal against the judgment an ent and decree dated 23.04.2015, pass 5, passed by the learned Additional District Jud t Judge, Ambala, whereby the app e appeal filed by the respondent- defendant w ant was partly allowed; and the the judgment and decree dated
17.04.2014, 2014, passed by the learned Add Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), N on), Naraingarh, was modified direct directing the respondent-defendant to pay doubl double amount of earnest money as ey as adequate compensation to the plaintiff-app appellant within a period of one mo ne month.
The matter pertains to the year year 2015 and on the first 02 dates of hearing i ring i.e. on 08.09.2015 and 29.10.201 d at 10.2015, the same was adjourned at the request quest of learned counsel for the appe e appellant. Thereafter, the present appeal was was dismissed for non-prosecution ution by the Predecessor Bench of this Court vi vide order dated 30.11.2015. Subs Subsequently, upon an application RISHU KATARIA 2025.10.28 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4565- -2015 (O&M) -2- moved by th by the applicant-appellant, the presen present second appeal was restored to its origina original number vide order dated 04.0 04.08.2016 and notice of motion was also issu so issued to the defendant-respondent ndent. After restoration, the present second appe appeal was listed for hearing for 017, g for 06 times i.e. on 04.05.2017,
27.10.2017, 2017, 07.08.2018, 12.02.2019, 11.05. t of 11.05.2023 and 22.04.2025; out of which on 03 on 03 occasions on 04.05.2017, 07.0 (last 7, 07.08.2018 and 22.04.2025 (last date of heari f hearing), the appellant had gone un ne un-represented. On the last date of hearing i. ring i.e. 22.04.2025, the matter was a was adjourned on account of non- appearance o rance on behalf of the appellant and d to t and the Registry was directed to inform learn learned counsel for the appellant ab lant about the date fixed. Even last opportunity tunity was granted to learned counsel ounsel for the appellant to address ents. arguments.
Pursuant thereto, office report report dated 16.10.2025 has been received as ed as per which, learned counsel for sel for the appellant has been duly informed abo ed about the date fixed
Today, in the first round of he of hearing, learned proxy counsel appearing on on behalf of the appellant and sou r, in nd sought a pass-over. However, in the second ro cond round none has put in appearance arance on behalf of the appellant.
A bare reading of the above facts shows that the appellant has exhibite xhibited an utterly casual attitude in tude in his pursuit of the present litigation. It ion. It is to be appreciated that very t very valuable public time of the Court has be has been expended in affording oppor opportunities to the appellant in the interest of ju t of justice. On the other hand, the ap the appellant has adopted an utterly casual and c and careless approach. It is clear tha ear that neither the appellant nor his counsel is is seriously interested in pursuing t ver, suing the present matter. Moreover, RISHU KATARIA 2025.10.28 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4565- -2015 (O&M) -3- earlier the p the present second appeal was dismi dismissed for non-prosecution by the Predeces edecessor Benches of this Court vide o hus, vide order dated 30.11.2015. Thus, this Court is ourt is left with no other option except except to dismiss the same for non- prosecution ution for the second time.
Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, any, shall also stand disposed of. 2025
27.10.2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.10.28 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.