RSA No.3323 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3323 of 1986 Date of Decision: 16.12.2011 Naurata Ram .....Appellant Vs. Sarwan .... Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK **** Present : Jagjit Singh Lalli, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. ... 1. Whether Reporter of the local paper 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 Pursuant to the order dated 11.8.2011, notices were issued to the parties and vide office report dated 16.9.2011, it was reported that appellant, as well as respondent were stated to have died during the pendency of the appeal. The case was adjourned to 29.10.2011, vide order dated 16.9.2011, for awaiting the filing of an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the parties. Thereafter, the case was taken up for hearing on 31.10.2011, but non appeared on behalf of either of the parties. However, vide order dated 31.10.2011, office was directed to inform the learned counsel for both the parties and the case was adjourned for 18.11.2011. Sh.Jagjit Singh Lalli, Advocate appeared on behalf of the RSA No.3323 of 1986 2 appellant/legal representatives of the appellant on 18.11.2011. However, nobody was present on behalf of the respondent, despite the fact that as per the office report dated 17.11.2011, learned counsel for the respondent had been served. On the request of Mr. Lalli, learned counsel for the appellant, the case was adjourned for today, so as to enable him to file an appropriate application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly submitted that although he was in a position to contact the legal representatives of the appellant and they are fully aware about the orders, noted above, passed by this court, but nobody has contacted him, so as to enable him to file the appropriate application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the parties. In view of the above, it appears that the legal representatives of the appellant are not interested to pursue this appeal any further. Thus, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution, under Order 41 Rule 17(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and also in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Anr. Vs. Raghu Raj, AIR 2009, S.C. 514. 16.12.2011 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) GS JUDGE