High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/9238/2023dismissed

M/S Braham Sarup And Sons v. Ut Chandigarh And Others

2024-11-07Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma,Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Sr. No.225 CWP-9238-2023(O&M) Date of Decision: 07.11.2024 M/s Braham Sarup & Sons

...Petitioner

VERSUS

UT of Chandigarh and others

...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Jagga, Addl. Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3.

Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.6. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(ORAL) Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate has moved adjournment application, wherein he has represented himself for respondent No.6 stating that learned counsel for respondent No.6 seeks two weeks time to implead LRs of respondent No.6. It is requested that short accommodation may kindly be granted.

When this Court looked into the matter, Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate appeared for the petitioner and not for respondent No.6. In fact, lawyer appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 separately, states that the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous as the property has already been sold by the petitioner to a third party, who had already taken over possession and had already been recognized by the UT Chandigarh. The adjournment application appears to be a prima-facie mischievous with ulterior motive and for the purpose to get the case adjourned unnecessarily for some other reasons, which is deprecated by this DINESH KUMAR 2024.11.14 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document at the bottom of left side

CWP-9238-2023 Court. A lawyer standing in the Court is expected to perform his duty diligently and with utmost integrity, and cannot act in a manner to mislead the Court and such attempts affect the career of a lawyer. However, this action of the lawyer will not keep us away from disposing of the present petition, which has become infructuous as it is informed by learned Senior Standing Counsel for UT Chandigarh that the property in question has already been sold by the petitioner and handed over to the new purchaser.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

( SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 07.11.2024 dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No DINESH KUMAR 2024.11.14 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document at the bottom of left side