Rakesh Garg, J. - (1.) DEFENDANT No. 1 who is the Appellant before this Court in this appeal, has challenged the judgment and decree dated 12.4.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby appeal filed by Plaintiff -Respondents No. 1 and 2 was accepted and while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, their suit was decreed in the following manner: The Plaintiff/Appellants in the above named appeal to the Addl. District Judge's Court at Hoshiarpur from the judgment and decree of the Court of Sh.K.S. Cheema, Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Dasuya dated 8.10.2002 for the reasons given in the grounds of appeal, attached separately: This appeal coming on 12th day of April 2006 for final disposal before me (Balbir Singh, Addl. District Judge, Hoshiarpur) in the presence of Shri Vivek Bhalla, Advocate, counsel for the Appellants, Sh.A.K. Mehta, Adv. counsel for Respondents No. 1 and Shri Ajay Gupta, Adv. counsel for Respondent No. 2, it is ordered that the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Court is set aside the suit of the Plaintiff for permanent injunction for restraining the Defendant No. 1 from cutting and removing the jand tree and not to obstruct the passing of the water from the drain in question and not to obstruct the passage of the Plaintiffs as claimed in the site plan Ex. P6 and the suit of the Plaintiffs for mandatory injunction for directing the Defendant No. 1 for removing the wall constructed by the Defendants to block the passage of the Plaintiff towards the northern side touching the Railway road as shown in the site plan attached with the report of the Local Commissioner, Ex.P.7 is ordered to be decreed and the appeal is allowed. The parties, however, are left to bear their own costs, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. Vide order dated 19.5.2006, notice of motion was issued. Execution of the decree was also stayed.
(2.) IT is a matter of record that Shri R.K. Joshi, Advocate, continued to appear for Respondent No. 1 in this case on various dates. However, thereafter he withdrew from the appeal by submitting that Respondent No. 1 has already sold the property during the pendency of the lis. It may also be mentioned that Respondent No. 2 was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. Thereafter, on an application moved by the Appellant one Ashok Kumar son of Mange Ran, resident of Railway Road, Dasuya, was impleaded as Respondent No. 4. Thereafter, on 5.4.2010, one Shri Rajive Dhawan, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4 placed an affidavit dated 4.9.2009 of Respondent No. 4 which was taken on record and marked as "CX". In this affidavit, it was stated on behalf of Respondent No. 4 that he does not want to pursue the said appeal and the same be decided in due course of law.
(3.) VIDE order dated 27.4.2010 counsel for the Appellant was granted an adjournment to enable him to place on record the compromise arrived at between the parties. However, on 1.7.2010 none appeared and the appeal was dismissed in default by passing the following order: Present: None. On the last date of hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants had stated that a short adjournment be granted to enable Appellant to place on record the compromise between the parties. Today, neither any compromise has been placed on record, nor counsel for the Appellant is present. Dismissed in default.;