The High Court dismissed the revision petition as infructuous on the ground that the underlying matter had been compromised and possession of premises was handed over to the respondent-landlord.
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
CR-5972-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:08.02.2012
Tej Mal Khatri ...Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Harmit Singh Mann ...Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Rajneesh Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present revision petition has become infructuous as the matter has been compromised and the possession of the demised premises has been handed over to the respondent-landlord.
Dismissed as infructuous accordingly.
February 08, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE
Tej Mal Khatri
Dr. Harmit Singh Mann
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
