Second appeal over land, suit for permanent injunction. Counsel for appellants 2 to 5 stated the appeal was infructuous as appellants had purchased the entire land; nothing survived.
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.
[231] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH
RSA-924 - 1999(O&M) Date of D ecision : 20.08.2024
Om Pal a n d others …Appellants
versus
Megha ….Respondent
Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: None for appellant No.1.
Mr. Amrainder Singh, Advo c ate for appellant Nos.2 to 5.
None for the respondent.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
[1] Counsel for appellant Nos. 2 to 5 submits that the prese n t appeal h a s been rendered infructuous in view of the fact that the appellant s have purchased the entire l a nd. Keeping in view that the present s u it was filed, seeking permanent injunction nothing survives.
[2] In view of the above, nothi n g survives in the present cas e . The same is dismissed as having become i nfructuous.
(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE
20.08.20 2 4
‘R. Sharma'
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.08.22 22:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Om Pal and others
Megha
Pankaj Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
