TAJ ALI vs RATTAN ETC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (226) RSA-3400-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision:-14.05.2026 TAJ ALI … Appellant Versus RATTAN CHAND ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: None. **** VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral) 1. None is present on behalf of the parties. On the previous date of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that despite making all possible efforts, he could not establish contact with the appellant. Notice was accordingly issued to the appellant, which has been received back duly served through his son. However, none has appeared on behalf of the appellant. The sole respondent is also reported to have expired. It appears that the appellants are no longer interested in pursuing the present case. 2. As such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the case on the docket, indefinitely. 3. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. As a natural corollary, since the main case stands dismissed for want of prosecution of, all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, as no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them pending. (VIRINDER AGGA