Mahesh Kumar And ORS v. Chaman Lal

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2302 of 2012 Date of Decision.04.08.2015 Mahesh Kumar and others .......Petitioners

Versus

Chaman Lal ......Respondent

Present:

Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1.

Learned counsel for the respondent states that the property has been taken possession of and the revision petition has become infructuous. The petitioner has no instructions. 2.

The revision petition is dismissed as having become infructuous and it is open to the petitioner for any modification of the order if the statement of the respondent is found to be not correct or the matter still requires an adjudication on merits. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 04, 2015 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.08.05 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document