High Court of Punjab and HaryanaRSA/5359/2012disposed of

Jaspal @ Shushil And ORS. v. Satya Devi And ORS.

2018-05-02Mr. Justice Arun Monga2 pages

RSA No.5359 of 2012 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.5359 of 2012 Date of Decision.02.05.2018 Jaspal @ Shushil and others ......Appellants Vs Satya Devi and others .....Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Vishmeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Bhinder, Advocate for appellant No.1 and 2.

Mr. S.S. Majithia, Advocate for appellant No.3 to 5.

Mr. Manu R. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1 to 9.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL) On the last date of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that the regular second appeal had been rendered infructuous as while preparing the final decree, the matter has been compromised by the respective parties.

Faced with that situation, learned counsel for the appellants had sought time for seeking instructions from his client. In this view of the matter, the case was adjourned for today. Today also, there is a request made for adjournment.

Learned counsel for the respondents has shown order of Lok Adalat dated 08.04.2017 in case of 'Satya Devi Vs. Shanti Devi etc.' which was the original memo of parties in the trial Court whereby the decree holders have suffered a statement that they have taken their possession. The order dated 08.04.2007 reads thus:- PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.05.07 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA No.5359 of 2012 -1- "The file taken up today and put up before the National Lok Adalat for compromise. Sh. H.S. Chahal, counsel for the applicants along with applicant Birbal Dass made statement that the applicants have taken the possession of their due share, so they do not want to proceed with the present application. In view of the above said statement, the present application is dismissed as withdrawn being fully satisfied. File be consigned to the Record Room."

In view of the aforementioned fact, I am of the view that no cause of action survives in the present appeal, for, the appeal had been filed against the drawing of preliminary decree.

The second appeal is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. The order dated 08.04.2017 shall be formed part of the record. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 02, 2018 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.05.07 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document