Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paras Ram vs Bharto Devi Deceased Through Lrs, Etc on 19 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162830
2023:PHHC:162830
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
218
RSA-1379-1994 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.12.2023
Paras Ram
....Appellant
Versus
Bharto Devi Deceased through LRs and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate for
Mr. Nitin Sarin, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
1. Challenge in the present regular second appeal is to the concurrent
findings of fact returned by the Courts below in favour of the plaintiff-respondents
in a suit filed for possession.
2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has filed an
affidavit of Jagdish Chand Sharma s/o Kedarnath, resident of House No.5530/3,
Near Railway Phatak, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh, who is
one of the LR of plaintiff-respondent Bharto Devi to submit that the in view of the
fact mentioned therein, the property in dispute had already been sold by the
plaintiff-respondent to the defendant-appellant in the year around 2004 and thus,
the present regular second appeal has been rendered infructuous.
3. Learned counsel appears for the appellant and submits that he has no
instructions in this regard. However, in case of disposing of the appeal in view of
the affidavit, he prays liberty to revive the present appeal be granted.
4. Heard.
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162830
RSA-1379-1994 (O&M) -2-
5. The affidavit produced in Court today reads thus:
"I, the above-named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and
state as under:
1. That the above mentioned appeal is listed before this
Hon'ble Court for 19.12.2023.
2. That the plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit for possession
of Booth No. 22, Sector-27C, Chandigarh against the present
appellant in the year 1975. The Ld. Trial Court had decreed the
suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent vide judgment and decree
dated 30.11.1978.
3. That the appellant feeling aggrieved by the judgment and
decree dated 30.11.1978, challenged the same before the Ld.
Additional District Judge, Chandigarh in Civil Appeal No. 346
of 1979 which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
05.05.1994.
4. That the appellant thereafter challenged the concurrent
findings before this Hon'ble Court in the above noted Regular
Second Appeal (RSA).
5. That on 27.05.1994, this Hon'ble Court had issued notice of
motion in the above mentioned RSA along with stay on the
execution of the judgment and decree of the lower Court.
Thereafter, the above mentioned RSA was admitted vide order
dated 20.07.1994 with a direction that the interim order passed
on 27.05.1994 shall continue.
6. That during the pendency of the above mentioned RSA, the
plaintiff/respondent had sold the property in dispute i.e. Booth
No. 22, Sector-27C, Chandigarh to the appellant in the year
around 2004. Therefore, nothing survives in the present RSA
and thereafter, I do not have any concern with the property in
dispute."
6. In view of the above, the present regular second appeal is disposed of
as having been rendered infructuous. However, liberty is granted to the appellant
to revive the appeal, if need arises.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
19.12.2023
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162830
2 of 2
