Dismissed
Prem Nath v. Veena
Delhi HCRC.REV./404/2017
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
Revision petition over use and occupation charges; parties compromised their disputes and counsel sought withdrawal, so the petition and pending applications were dismissed as withdrawn.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
$~3
¶2
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
¶3
- RC.REV. 404/2017, CM APPL. 26287/2019 (use and occupation charges) & CM APPL. 31496/2017 (stay)
¶4
PREM NATH ..... Petitioner
¶5
Through: Mr Anand Verdhan Maitreya, Adv.
¶6
versus VEENA ..... Respondent Through: None
¶7
CORAM:
¶8
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
¶9
O R D E R % 08.05.2024
¶10
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
¶11
- Learned counsel for petitioner on instructions of his client seeks permission to withdraw this petition as parties have compromised the disputes.
¶12
- As requested, the petition as well as pending applications are dismissed as withdrawn.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- petitioner
Prem Nath
- respondent
Veena
Coram
AI extract
Girish Kathpalia
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court