Neeraj v. Anil Kumar
Case brief
What is this about?
The court examined the petition which had become infructuous as possession was voluntarily handed over. Consequently, no further orders were passed and the petition was closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
| Civil Revision No.15 of 2009 Decided on : 03.08.2023 |
|---|
| Neeraj and Ors. .…Petitioners |
| Versus |
| Anil Kumar …Respondent |
| Coram |
| The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For petitioner No.6 : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. |
| For the respondent : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Rinki Kashmir, Advocate. |
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)
Learned counsel for petitioner No. 6 has submitted that due to intervening period of the pendency of the petition, the subject matter has been rendered infructuous for the reason that the respondents /tenants have handed over vacant and peaceful possession to the petitioner/landlord.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
- In view of this, no further orders are required
to be passed and the petition is accordingly closed and
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Neeraj and Ors.
- respondent
Anil Kumar
Coram
Satyen Vaidya
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Himachal Pradesh HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- CR/15/2009
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court