The petitioner did not appear. The learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submitted that the main suit is decreed, rendering the revision infructuous. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the petition solely for non-prosecution by the petitioner, without reaching the substantive submission.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1888 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.05.2012
Chander Mohan Nanda
... Petitioner
vs
Nikhil and others
..Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:. None for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that during the pendency of the present petition before this Court, the main suit filed by the petitioner has been decreed. Hence, the present petition has been rendered infructuous.
As the counsel for the petitioner is not available, the present petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE
24.05.2012
sharmila
Chander Mohan Nanda
Nikhil and others
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
