RSA No.2093 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2093 of 1989 Date of Decision: 2.12.2011 The Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, Mukatsar and others .....Appellants Vs. Mohinder Pal ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK **** Present : Nemo. .... 1. Whether reporter of the local newspaper may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? ... RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J This appeal has been filed by the Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, Muktsar and others, who were the original defendants in the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff-respondent. The suit was decreed by the learned trial court vide its judgement and decree dated 1.2.1988. Dissatisfied with the judgement and decree passed by the learned trial court, the defendants filed their first appeal before the RSA No.2093 of 1989 2 learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, which was dismissed, vide impugned judgement and decree dated 16.3.1989. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have filed the present Regular Second Appeal before this court. This appeal was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 7.12.1989. Since it was a money decree, stay was declined. Thereafter, C.M.No.2196-C of 1990 was filed under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC for stay of execution proceedings. This stay application was also dismissed vide order dated 20.7.1990. In view of the above, it prima facie appears to this court that since it was a money decree and stay was declined by this court, the impugned decree, in all probabilities, might have been executed, it being a suit for recovery. When this matter came up for regular hearing on 14.11.2011, none appeared on behalf of either of the parties. In the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to 25.11.2011. When the matter was listed for regular hearing on 25.11.2011, again nobody appeared on behalf of either of the parties, despite the office report dated 22.11.2011 that in compliance of the order dated 14.11.2011, office of the Advocate General, Punjab, had been informed. Nobody is present on behalf of either of the parties even today. Thus, it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing this appeal. In view of what has been noted above, the present appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution, in view of the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 17 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and also in RSA No.2093 of 1989 3 view of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Deptt. Of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Anr. V. Raghu Raj, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 514. 2.12.2011 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) GS JUDGE