The High Court dismissed the main appeal as withdrawn following a settlement between the parties. A connected chamber petition seeking withdrawal was allowed.
C.M. No. 93-C of 2011 disposed of; R.S.A. No. 2608 of 2010 dismissed as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R. S. A. No. 2608 of 2010 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2608 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 18, 2011
Pardeep Kumar Malhotra and others
.... Appellants
Vs. Amar Nath and another .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present : Mr. G. S. Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
C. M. No. 92-C of 2011 :
Allowed as prayed for.
C. M. No. 93-C of 2011 and Main Appeal :
Appellants have moved C. M. No. 93-C of 2011 alleging that
the parties have effected compromise Annexure P-3 and pursuant to compromise, sale deeds Annexures P-4 and P-5 have also since been executed, and therefore, appellants be permitted to withdraw the appeal and decree be passed in terms of settlement. Learned counsel for the appellants
R. S. A. No. 2608 of 2010 (O&M)
2
states that since respondents have not put in appearance in spite of service, in view of settlement, which has also been implemented by way of sale deeds, appellants may be permitted to withdraw the appeal. The prayer is allowed. Accordingly, C. M. No. 93-C of 2011 stands disposed of and R. S. A. No. 2608 of 2010 is dismissed as withdrawn.
January 18, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE
Pardeep Kumar Malhotra and others
Amar Nath and another
L. N. Mittle
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
