RSA No.1007 of 1986 (O&M) RSA No.1008 of 1986 (O&M) -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. RSA No.1007 of 1986 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.2.2011 Dharamshala Taraf Mansoor of village Bundala ...Appellant Versus Dalip Singh and others ...Respondents 2. RSA No.1008 of 1986 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.2.2011 Dharamshala Taraf Mansoor of village Bundala ...Appellant Versus Mohan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: None for the parties *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) Brief facts leading to both the Regular Second Appeals are as under:- One Civil Suit No.77 of 1979 was filed by appellant Dharamshala Taraf Mansoor of village Bundala against Tarlochan Singh and others and another Civil Suit No.88 of 1979 was also filed by appellant Dharamshala Taraf Mansoor of village Bundala against Tarlochan Singh and others. Civil Suit No.77 of 1979 for possession was decreed in favour RSA No.1007 of 1986 (O&M) RSA No.1008 of 1986 (O&M) -2 of Dharmshala Taraf Mansoor against which, appeal was filed by respondent-defendants, which was accepted by learned First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 2.12.1985 by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court and in consequence thereof, suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. Similarly, appeal against judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.88 of 1979 was also accepted by learned First Appellate Court and judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was set aside. The aforementioned Regular Second Appeals have been filed by appellant-plaintiff aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court. Both the appeals were admitted for hearing by this Court vide order dated 5.8.1986. Notices for actual date of hearing were issued to the parties by this Court for 8.5.2009 vide order dated 27.2.2009. Notices were also sent by registered AD. In pursuance of the same, Mr.HS Dhillon, Advocate appeared for the appellant and Mr.AS Khaira, Advocate appeared for the respondents on 21.5.2009. On 21.5.2009, learned counsel for the appellant had prayed for time to place on record substantial questions of law stated to be arising in this appeal and hence, on his request, the case was adjourned for 19.8.2009. The case was again taken up by this Court on 3.12.2010, when Mr.Shakun Chaudhary, Advocate appeared on behalf of Mr.Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant and however, none appeared on behalf of respondents and the following order was passed: RSA No.1007 of 1986 (O&M) RSA No.1008 of 1986 (O&M) -3 “Mr.Shakun Chaudhary, Advocate appearing for Mr.Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant and has sought adjournment. Despite sufficient opportunities appellant has not placed on record the substantial questions of law said to be arising in this appeal. List on 9.2.2011. In case the substantial questions of law are not filed before the date fixed, it will be presumed that no substantial question of law arises out of this appeal and the appeal shall be dismissed. Counsel for the appellant may also inform this Court regarding the present status of lis between the parties.” Both the appeals were listed for today, but none appeared for the appellant, nor the aforementioned order dated 3.12.2010 has been complied. It seems that the appellant is no more interested in pursuing these appeals. Hence, both these appeals are dismissed in default. February 9, 2011 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE