High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Krishan Mohinder Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 July, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Mohinder Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 July, 2009
R.S.A No. 4669 of 2004                                    ::1::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH



                                      R.S.A No. 4669 of 2004
                                      Date of decision : July 15, 2009


Krishan Mohinder Singh and others,

                                            ...... Appellant (s)

                         v.

State of Haryana and others,
                                            ...... Respondent(s)

                               ***

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

***

Present : Mr. K.S.Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. M.S.Brar, Advocate
for the appellants.

Mr.Madan Gupta, Sr. DAG Haryana
for respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. P.N.Arora, Advocate
for respondents No.14 to 11 and 13.

***

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

***

AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)

This is an appeal against concurrent judgments of the Courts

below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellants for mandatory

permanent injunction.

During the course of arguments, the controversy has been

considerably narrowed down. It is not disputed that the appeal filed by the

appellants was dismissed only on the ground that the Gram Panchayat or the
R.S.A No. 4669 of 2004 ::2::

proprietary body was not a party to the suit. Counsel for the private

respondents has brought to my notice the fact that during this interregnum

the Gram Panchayat had filed an application for ejectment of the appellants

which was allowed.

Counsel for the appellants is not in a position to deny that in

fact that litigation is the proper litigation to decide the title of the appellants.

In the circumstances, counsel for the appellants has stated that

he may be allowed to withdraw the suit, and that the appellants would

prosecute that litigation which is pending before the authorities under the

Punjab Village Common Lands (Development and Regulation) Act, 1961.

Counsel for the respondents are not in a position to effectively oppose this

plea since their rights cannot be deemed to have been affected if the

appellants are permitted to withdraw their suit.

In view of the fact that the appeal of the appellants was

dismissed on a technical ground, as well as the fact that now the matter is

pending before the appropriate authorities, I find that the interest of justice

would be served if the appellants are permitted to withdraw their suit with

the permission to take all pleas available to them in the pending litigation.

Ordered accordingly.

Consequently, this appeal stands disposed of.

As the main appeal has since been disposed of, all the pending

civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

                                            ( AJAY TEWARI              )
July 15, 2009.                                   JUDGE
`kk'
 R.S.A No. 4669 of 2004   ::3::