The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal as infructuous because the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had retired, causing the cause of action to cease to exist.
Appeal dismissed as rendered infructuous.
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
RSA No. 1021 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.02.2013
Shri P.P. Caprihan
……Appellant
Versus
Dr. Shree Bhagwan and others
…….Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: None.
A.N. Jindal, J.
On perusal of the record, it appears that the plaintiff-respondent
No.1 must have retired by now. Therefore, no cause of action survives in this
appeal.
Dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
01.02.2013
(A.N.Jindal) Judge
ajp
Shri P.P. Caprihan
Dr. Shree Bhagwan
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
