CWP-18914-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 132 CWP-18914-2026 Date of Decision: 01.07.2026 Arun Gupta …Petitioner(s) Versus District and Sessions Judge, District Courts, S.A.S. Nagar …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. Vaibhav Vats, Advocate for the petitioner TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent - learned District & Sessions Judge, District Courts, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, to inquire into and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 14.02.2023, Annexure P-2, regarding missing judicial document/Ex. DW2/D-1 from the record of Civil Suit no.214 of 2011/CIS no.CS/0000358/2013 titled Raj Kumar and others v. Manjit Singh Bakshi and others, decided on 19.05.2015. 2. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner was a defendant in the aforementioned case and had moved an application dated 23.08.2022, Annexure P-1, seeking a copy of the aforementioned exhibit. However, vide communication dated 04.10.2022, it was informed that the document was not on record. Accordingly, he presented another application dated 14.02.2023, PAYAL Annexure P-2, to learned Sessions Judge lodging complaint of the misplaced 2026.07.06 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18914-2026 -2- document, and seeking necessary action in the matter. The complaint has not been decided so far for no reason.

3. Considering the submissions, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. 4. Apparently, the document in question pertains to a civil suit which already stands decided on 19.05.2015. The application seeking a copy of the document, Ex. DW2/D-1, was filed after seven years therefrom on 23.08.2022; and the application seeking action with respect to the misplaced document was filed on 14.02.2023. The petitioner has approached this Court after more than three years therefrom without any explanation for the delay. Even otherwise, merely because the District Court Registry has reported that copy of the document which has been sought is not on record, is no ground for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the complaint regarding it. No statutory right has been violated. 5. Dismissed. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 01.07.2026 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PAYAL 2026.07.06 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-18914-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 132 CWP-18914-2026 Date of Decision: 01.07.2026 Arun Gupta …Petitioner(s) Versus District and Sessions Judge, District Courts, S.A.S. Nagar …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. Vaibhav Vats, Advocate for the petitioner TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent - learned District & Sessions Judge, District Courts, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, to inquire into and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 14.02.2023, Annexure P-2, regarding missing judicial document/Ex. DW2/D-1 from the record of Civil Suit no.214 of 2011/CIS no.CS/0000358/2013 titled Raj Kumar and others v. Manjit Singh Bakshi and others, decided on 19.05.2015. 2. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner was a defendant in the aforementioned case and had moved an application dated 23.08.2022, Annexure P-1, seeking a copy of the aforementioned exhibit. However, vide communication dated 04.10.2022, it was informed that the document was not on record. Accordingly, he presented another application dated 14.02.2023, PAYAL Annexure P-2, to learned Sessions Judge lodging complaint of the misplaced 2026.07.06 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18914-2026 -2- document, and seeking necessary action in the matter. The complaint has not been decided so far for no reason.

3. Considering the submissions, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. 4. Apparently, the document in question pertains to a civil suit which already stands decided on 19.05.2015. The application seeking a copy of the document, Ex. DW2/D-1, was filed after seven years therefrom on 23.08.2022; and the application seeking action with respect to the misplaced document was filed on 14.02.2023. The petitioner has approached this Court after more than three years therefrom without any explanation for the delay. Even otherwise, merely because the District Court Registry has reported that copy of the document which has been sought is not on record, is no ground for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the complaint regarding it. No statutory right has been violated. 5. Dismissed. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 01.07.2026 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PAYAL 2026.07.06 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment