High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/10335/2013disposed of

Priya Kumari v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. And ORS.

2016-09-20Mr. Justice T.H.B. Chalapathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 10335 of 2013 Date of Decision: 20.9.2016 Priya Kumari .....Petitioner Vs.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present :

None for the petitioner.

Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for respondent No.3.

**** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL) Present writ petition is directed against the result dated 2.7.2009 (Annexure P-1), whereby respondent No.3 was allotted H.P. Gas Distributorship, at village Bhunga, in District Hoshiarpur. Notice of motion was issued and in compliance thereof, written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 has been filed. Separate reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3.

Case called twice. Nobody has come present on behalf of the petitioner.

Amit Kumar 2016.09.23 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Civil Writ Petition No. 10335 of 2013 Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, while referring to relevant averments taken in para 2 of the preliminary objections of the written statement, submits that the petitioner challenged this very issue by way of suit for declaration, bearing Civil Suit No. 316/05.8.2010 before the learned civil court. He further submits that since learned court of competent jurisdiction dismissed the suit of the petitioner, vide judgment and decree dated 9.7.2014 (Annexure R-1/2), present writ petition does not survive any further. He also submits that since no further appeal was filed against the abovesaid civil court judgment and decree dated 9.7.2014, the same has attained finality against the petitioner.

The abovesaid statement made by learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has been supported by learned counsel for respondent No.3 also.

It is also pertinent to note here that no replication has been filed to the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. In view of the above, instant writ petition is ordered to be disposed of, as having been rendered infructuous. (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 20.9.2016 Ak Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Amit Kumar 2016.09.23 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document