Dismissed
Kishan Lal v. Vinod Kumar
Delhi HCRC.REV./188/2016
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
Single judge order dismissing a petition for non-prosecution as the petitioner had already taken possession and was no longer interested, marking a connected stay order as infructuous.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
$~24
¶2
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
¶3
- RC.REV. 188/2016
¶4
KISHAN LAL .....Petitioner Through: None.
¶5
versus
¶6
VINOD KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr.Vijay Kasona, Advoate.
¶7
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
¶8
O R D E R % 05.05.2017
¶9
- None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
¶10
- On the last date of hearing also none was present for the petitioner.
¶11
- Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that possession has already been taken over by the petitioner on 20th July, 2016.
¶12
- It appears that since the petitioner has taken over the possession, he is not interested in continuing with the petition.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- petitioner
Kishan Lal
- respondent
Vinod Kumar
Coram
AI extract
Pratibha Rani
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court