RSA No.1048 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1048 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision:22.07.2010 Kishan Singh and others. ..Appellants Versus Rajinder and another. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- None for the appellants. RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. (ORAL) This is plaintiffs' (appellants herein) sencond appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby their suit for permanent injunction was dismissed and counter-claim of defendant-respondents was decreed and the appellants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the defendants over the suit property. This appeal came up for hearing on 10.03.2010, the case was called twice. However, nobody put in appearance on behalf of the appellants and the case was adjourned to 22.04.2010. On 22.04.2010, again the case was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the appellants for today. Today, on the first call, a request for adjournment was made on behalf of counsel for the appellants. However, this Court did not grant the aforesaid prayer and gave a pass over to the case. On second call, no one is present on behalf of the appellants. It seems that learned counsel for the appellants does not want to provide necessary assistance to the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Smt. Poonam Vs.Sumit RSA No.1048 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: Tanwar, (AIR 2010 SC 1384) has observed that the Court is not obliged to decide the case on merits if no necessary assistance is not provided to the Court. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as follows:- "In absence of proper assistance to Court by the lawyer, there is no obligation on the part of the Court to decide the case, for the simple reason that unless the lawyer renders the proper assistance to the Court, the Court is not able to decide the case. It is not for the Court itself to decide the controversy. The counsel cannot just raise the issues in his petition and leave it to the Court to give its decision on those points after going through the record and determining the correctness thereof. It is not for the Court itself to find out what the points for determination can be and then proceed to give a decision on those points. In case counsel for the party is not able to render any assistance, the Court may decline to entertain the petition". In this view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) July 22, 2010 JUDGE Sukhpreet