IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.03.2026 Kartar Singh .… Appellant Versus Jagat Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - None.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the concurrent judgments and decrees of both the District Courts whereby the suit for declaration along with consequential relief of permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

2. Perusal of the order-sheet(s) reveal(s) that the matter pertains to the year 2019 and notice in the main appeal is yet to be issued. It is further revealed that vide order dated 02.04.2025, the main appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution as, since the inception of the present appeal the same was adjourned either on account of non-appearance or at the request of learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Subsequently, vide order dated 19.05.2025 passed by this Court, the main appeal was restored; and was adjourned to 02.02.2026, at the request of learned counsel for the appellant, subject to costs of ₹50,000/- to be disposed with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund within a period of 02 weeks therefrom.

3. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application bearing No. CM-6922-C-2025 for recalling of the order dated 19.05.2025, vide which costs of ₹50,000/- was imposed upon the applicant-appellant. Vide order dated 07.07.2025, the said application was partly allowed by this Court; and the appellant was directed to deposit costs of ₹20,000/- instead of ₹50,000/- as imposed vide order dated 19.05.2025.

4. Again the appellant had moved another application bearing CM-9187-C-2025 seeking extension of one week’s time to deposit the costs of ₹20,000/- in terms of order dated 07.07.2025. Vide order dated 07.08.2025, the said application was allowed; and one week’s time was granted to the appellant to comply with the order dated 07.07.2025.

5. As per record, the aforesaid costs of ₹20,000/- has been deposited by the appellant vide Receipt No. 4888 dated 08.08.2025.

6. On the last date of hearing i.e. 02.02.2026, again the appellant had gone un-represented. Consequently, the present second appeal came be listed for hearing today. Today again, even in the second round of hearing, none has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant.

7. A bare reading of the above facts shows that the appellant has exhibited an utterly casual attitude in his pursuit of the present litigation. It is to be appreciated that very valuable public time of the Court has been expended in affording opportunities to the appellant in the interest of justice. On the other hand, the appellant has adopted an utterly casual and careless approach. It is clear that neither the appellant nor his counsel is seriously interested in pursuing the present matter. Moreover, earlier the present second appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court vide order dated 02.04.2025. Thus, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the same for non-prosecution for the second time.

8. Ordered accordingly.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 16.03.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA )

rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No