The High Court
Case Details
CR-2200-2013(O&M) 2013(O&M) [1] 108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CR-2200-201 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: 15.09.2025 Date of Decision: 15.09.2025 Jatinder Kumar Jatinder Kumar Pawan Kumar Pawan Kumar Versus ........ Petitioner ......... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present:- Gagneshwar Walia, Legal Aid counsel. Mr.Gagneshwar Walia, Legal Aid counsel. for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the respondent. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present revision petition challenge has been laid By way of present revision petition challenge has been laid By way of present revision petition challenge has been laid to an order dated 23.02.2013 (P-1) passed by the learned to an order dated Executing ) passed by the learned Executing Court-cum-learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Phul, learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Phul, Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Phul, whereby an execution application preferred at the instance of the whereby an execution application preferred at the instance of the whereby an execution application preferred at the instance of the whereby an execution application preferred at the instance of the petitioner/ landlord was disposed of being fully satisfied. petitioner/ landlord was disposed of being fully satisfied. petitioner/ landlord was disposed of being fully satisfied. 2. petitioner being landlord sought In the present case, the petitioner being landlord sought petitioner being landlord sought eviction of the respondent/ tenant from the demised shop. The eviction of the respondent/ tenant from the demised shop. The eviction of the respondent/ tenant from the demised shop. The eviction of the respondent/ tenant from the demised shop. The description of the property given by the petitioner/ landlord in his description of the property given by the petitioner/ landlord in his description of the property given by the petitioner/ landlord in his description of the property given by the petitioner/ landlord in his eviction petition is extracted hereunder:- eviction petition is extracted hereunder: “Petition under Section 13 of The East Punjab on under Section 13 of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949' for ejectment of the Rent Restriction Act, 1949' for ejectment of the 1 from the shop and Hatta situated in respondent No.1 from the shop and Hatta situated in Mandi Phul and bounded as under:- Mandi Phul and bounded as under: Hatta of the shop in dispute East: Hatta of the shop in dispute West: Road SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.17 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2200-2013(O&M) 2013(O&M) [2]
Legal Reasoning
Shop of Shri Balwinder Singh Rajinder South: Shop of Shri Balwinder Singh Rajinder Singh of Phul Singh of Phul Shops of Shri Tilak Ram Kapur Chand North: Shops of Shri Tilak Ram Kapur Chand etc.” The learned Rent Controller, Phul, vide its decision dated The learned Rent Controller, Phul, vide its decision dated The learned Rent Controller, Phul, vide its decision dated 22.02.2007 ordered eviction of respondent/ tenant on the ground of 22.02.2007 ordered eviction of respondent/ tenant on the ground of 22.02.2007 ordered eviction of respondent/ tenant on the ground of 22.02.2007 ordered eviction of respondent/ tenant on the ground of bonafide need of bonafide need of bonafide need of bonafide need of the petitioner/ the petitioner/ the petitioner/ the petitioner/ landlord. Aggrieved landlord. Aggrieved landlord. Aggrieved landlord. Aggrieved thereof, thereof, thereof, thereof, appeal which was allowed by the learned respondent/ tenant filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned appeal which was allowed by the learned respondent/ tenant filed Appellate Authority on 17.10.2007. Appellate Authority on 17.10.2007. 3. Being aggrieved of the order dated 17.10.2007, the Being aggrieved of the order dated 17.10.2007, the Being aggrieved of the order dated 17.10.2007, the petitioner/ landlord approached this Court in a revision petition which petitioner/ landlord approached this Court in a revision petition which petitioner/ landlord approached this Court in a revision petition which petitioner/ landlord approached this Court in a revision petition which the order of was allowed vide order dated 17.08.2009, restoring the order of was allowed vide order dated 17.08.2009, was allowed vide order dated 17.08.2009, eviction passed against the respondent/ tenant. The SLP preferred at eviction passed against the respondent/ tenant. The SLP preferred at eviction passed against the respondent/ tenant. The SLP preferred at eviction passed against the respondent/ tenant. The SLP preferred at was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex the instance of respondent/tenant was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex the instance of respondent/ Court on 15.03.2010. In view thereof, the petitioner/ landlord filed the Court on 15.03.2010. In view thereof, the petitioner/ landlord filed the Court on 15.03.2010. In view thereof, the petitioner/ landlord filed the Court on 15.03.2010. In view thereof, the petitioner/ landlord filed the e possession of the demised premises was eviction petition wherein the possession of the demised premises was e possession of the demised premises was eviction petition wherein th restored to him on 13.09.2010 and thereafter the execution petition restored to him on 13.09.2010 and thereafter the execution petition restored to him on 13.09.2010 and thereafter the execution petition restored to him on 13.09.2010 and thereafter the execution petition cum- was disposed of being satisfied by the learned Executing Court-cum was disposed of being satisfied by the learned Executing Court was disposed of being satisfied by the learned Executing Court ated Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul vide its order dated Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul vide its order Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul vide its order 23.02.2013. 23.02.2013. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been handed over complete physical possession of the demised premises handed over complete physical possession of the demised premise handed over complete physical possession of the demised premise s. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the total area regarding Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the total area regarding Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the total area regarding Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the total area regarding which the eviction was sought happened to be which the eviction was sought happened to be measuring 14’ x 43’ ’ ; whereas the possession of 10½’ x 43’ area whereas the possession was handed over to area only was handed over to SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.17 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2200-2013(O&M) 2013(O&M) [3] him. He thus submits that the order passed by the learned Executing . He thus submits that the order passed by the learned Executing . He thus submits that the order passed by the learned Executing . He thus submits that the order passed by the learned Executing Court was required required to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone The present revision petition came to up for through the paper-book. The present revision petition came to up for The present revision petition came to up for through the pap hearing before this Court on 28.05.2015 and this Court was pleased to hearing before this Court on 28.05.2015 and this Court was pleased to hearing before this Court on 28.05.2015 and this Court was pleased to hearing before this Court on 28.05.2015 and this Court was pleased to order directing the learned Executing Court to determine pass an order directing the learned Executing Court to determine order directing the learned Executing Court to determine order directing the learned Executing Court to determine certain questions and the relevant portion certain questions thereof is extracted and the relevant portion thereof is extracted - hereunder:- “After going through the record, it appears that After going through the record, it appears that the shop of the petitioner is adjacent to shop of Sadhu the shop of the petitioner is adjacent to shop of Sadhu Singh on one side and the shop of Jagdamba Singh on one side and the shop of Jagdamba Emporium on another side. It will not be appropriate for Emporium on another side. It will not be appropriate for this Court to determine the disputed question of fact at this Court to determine the disputed qu this stage but taking into consideration the fact that all this stage but taking into consideration the fact that all the questions arising between the parties to a suit or the questions arising between the parties to a suit or eviction proceedings before a Tribunal eviction proceedings before a Tribunal in which in which decree/ ejectment order is passed shall be determined decree/ ejectment order is passed shall be determined by the forum executing the decree and not by a by the forum executing separate suit. All questions relating to execution, separate suit. All questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree are to be discharge or satisfaction of the decree are to be determined by Executing court. The Executing Court determined by Executing court. The Executing Court appears to have adopted an evasive approach to appears to have adopted an evasive approach to perform that statutory duty. In the interest of justice, I perform that statutory duty. In deem it appropriate to refer the matter to the Executing deem it appropriate to refer the matter to the Executing Court for determination of following questions:- Court for determination of following questions: i) What was the area and description of the shop/ What was the area and description of the shop/ premises rented out by the petitioner to his premises rented out by the petitioner to his tenant which tenant which forms subject matter of forms subject ma the ejectment proceedings as per the pleadings and ejectment proceedings as per the pleadings and evidence constituting part of the record? evidence constituting part of the record? Whether ii) Whether the petitioner has been delivered the petitioner has been delivered possession of possession of lesser area lesser area (constructed or (constructed or SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.17 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2200-2013(O&M) 2013(O&M) [4] otherwise) to the extent of 443 sq. yards, as otherwise) to the extent of 443 sq. yards, as claimed by him? iii) If question No.(ii) is proved, then as to who is/ If question No.(ii) is proved, then as to who is/ are in possession of the original area of the are in possession of the original area of the rented shop/ premises which was the subject rented shop/ premises which was the subject matter of the ejectment proceedings to the matter of the ejectment proceedings to the extent of 443 sq. yards as per the present extent of 443 sq. yards as per the present demarcation. e judgment debtor or decree iv) Whether it is the judgment debtor or decree holder or anyone else responsible holder or anyone else responsible for for the the delivery of alleged deficient area to the third delivery of alleged deficient area to the third party, if any? Whether there is any other litigation pending v) Whether there is any other litigation pending pertaining to the tenanted premises, if so, what pertaining to the tenanted premises, if so, what is its effect on the present execution application? is its effect on the presen It is observed that it will be open to the It is observed that it will be open to the Executing Court to take assistance of the judgment Executing Court to take assistance of the judgment debtor (including his heirs or representatives), decree debtor (including his heirs or representatives), decree petitioner, the original record, the revenue holder- petitioner, the original record, the revenue authorities and police authorities/ SSP, to determine if authorities and police auth the portion belonging to the petitioner is in possession the portion belonging to the petitioner is in possession of any unauthorized occupant. It will be open to the of any unauthorized occupant. It will be open to the Court, in the interest of justice, to suo motu summon Court, in the interest of justice, to suo motu summon any witness relevant for adjudication of the controversy any witness relevant for adjudication of the controversy mentioned hereinabove. A period of three months is granted to the A period of three months is granted to the learned Executing Court to determine the above said learned Executing Court to determine the above said questions. In case the judgment debtor or decree questions. In case the judgment debtor or decree holder file any application to facilitate the adjudication, holder file any application to facilitate the adjudication, it will be the discretion of the Court to take the same it will be the discretion of the into consideration. It is also left open to the Executing into consideration. It is also left open to the Executing Court to frame any other additional question if it is Court to frame any other additional question if it is deemed appropriate. For awaiting the report, to come up on October For awaiting the report, to come up on October 13, 2015. SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.17 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2200-2013(O&M) 2013(O&M) [5] Copy of Copy of the order be sent the order be sent to to the Court the Court concerned. The petitioner and judgment debtor in person or The petitioner and judgment debtor in person or through their representatives will appear before the through their representatives will appear before the Executing Court on July 4, 2015. Period of three Executing Court on July 4, 2015. Period of three months will be calculated after said date of hearing.” months will be calculated after said date of hearing.” urt having In pursuance thereof, learned Executing Court having In pursuance thereof, learned Executing Co submitted its report dated granted opportunity to both the sides, submitted its report dated granted opportunity to both the sides granted opportunity to both the sides 07.11.2015. The relevant portion therefrom is extracted hereunder:- 07.11.2015. The relevant portion therefrom is extracted hereunder: 07.11.2015. The relevant portion therefrom is extracted hereunder: The report on the asked points is as under:- “The report on the asked points is as under: (i) The area of shop/ premises rented out by the The area of shop/ premises rented out by the to his tenant is 66.80 sq. yards and petitioner to his tenant is 66.80 sq. yards and description of the said shop/premises is as Point description of the said shop/premises is as Point A to B = 44'-9", from Point C to D = 44' 9", from Point C to D = 44'-6", from Point B to C = 13'.10.5" and from Point D to A Point B to C = 13'.10.5" and from Point D to A 9". The total area is 66.80 sq. yards. It is 13'-9". The total area is 66.80 sq. yards. It is further submitted that petitioner has not given further submitted that any description of the area, which he had rented any description of the area, which he had rented out. The out. The copy copy of of rent rent petition petition and and judgment/order, Annexure Annexure-D and Annexure-E are attached herewith for ready reference. It is are attached herewith for ready reference. It is also relevant to mention here that the Decree also relevant to mention here that the Decree not produce any sale deed qua the Holder did not produce any sale deed qua the suit property. (ii) The petitioner has been delivered possession of The petitioner has been delivered possession of 66.80 sq. yards i.e. disputed shop and 217 sq. 66.80 sq. yards i.e. disputed shop and 217 sq. yards i.e. Ahata as per report submitted by Sh. yards i.e. Ahata as per report submitted by Sh. Mahesh Kumar, J.E., which total comes to Mahesh Kumar, J.E., which total comes to 283.80 sq. yards. Further more, the petitioner 283.80 sq. yards. Furt has not produced any document regarding the has not produced any document regarding the ownership of his property despite directed by the ownership of his property despite directed by the court. It is relevant to mention here that the court. It is relevant to mention here that the Decree Holder claims to be the owner of area Decree Holder claims to be the owner of area more than 443 sq. yards, but, as a matter of fact, more than 443 sq. yards, but, as a matter of SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.17 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2200-2013(O&M) 2013(O&M) [6] the erty in dispute is only 283.80 sq. yards. the erty in dispute is only 283.80 sq. yards. Therefore, the delivery of possession of property Therefore, the delivery of possession of property of 443 sq. yards does not property arise. of 443 sq. yards does not property arise. There is no property of the petitioner to the (iii) There is no property of the petitioner to the extent of 443 sq. yards, as per finding on issue extent of 443 sq. yards, as per finding on issue No.1 the total area is 283.80 sq. yards and the No.1 the total area is 283.80 sq. yards and the possession of the same has already been possession of the same has already been delivered to the decree Holder and at present delivered to the decree Holder and at present the shop/premises in dispute is lying vacant and the shop/premises in disput in possession of the Decree Holder. It is also in possession of the Decree Holder. It is also worthwhile to mention that Udham Singh, who is worthwhile to mention that Udham Singh, who is owner of the adjoining shop is owner of land owner of the adjoining shop is owner of land measuring 29' X 45', which he had purchased measuring 29' X 45', which he had purchased through two sale deeds on dated 12.08.1986 through two sale deeds on dated 12.08.1986 and 13.08.1997, which are 8.1997, which are Annexure-F and and as per the report submitted by Annexure-G and as per the report submitted by J.E., the total area in the possession of Paramjit J.E., the total area in the possession of Paramjit Singh son of Udam Singh is now 28'.9" X 44'.9" Singh son of Udam Singh is now 28'.9" X 44'.9" and Balwinder Singh son of Sadhu Singh, whose and Balwinder Singh son of Sadhu Singh, whose shop is situated on the Eastern side, shown to shop is situated on the Eastern s be the area 13.7" X 44'.6". As such, from the be the area 13.7" X 44'.6". As such, from the measurement, it cannot be concluded that the measurement, it cannot be concluded that the shop adjoining to the shop in dispute have any shop adjoining to the shop in dispute have any encroach upon the shop in dispute. encroach upon the shop in dispute. No one is responsible for the delivery for the (iv) No one is responsible for the delivery for the alleged deficient area to anyone, as there is total alleged deficient area area of petitioner area of petitioner is 283.80 sq. yards, is 283.80 sq. yards, possession of which has already been delivered possession of which has already been delivered to the Decree Holder. More importantly, the D.H. to the Decree Holder. More importantly, the D.H. has not produced any sale deed to arrive at a has not produced any sale deed to arrive at a conclusion that the Decree Holder has got less conclusion that the Decree Holder has got le area, than he delivered to the Judgment Debtor. area, than he delivered to the Judgment Debtor. (v) It is here relevant to mention that when the It is here relevant to mention that when the Decree Holder was asked to give the detail of Decree Holder was asked to give the detail of pending qua the suit property, he openly refused pending qua the suit property, he openly refused to provide any to provide any information of information of the pending the pending SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.17 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2200-2013(O&M) 2013(O&M) [7] litigation, but however, from the statement of litigation, but however Pawan Kumar, L.R. of Krishan Chand, J.D., the Pawan Kumar, L.R. regarding the pendency of the suit information regarding the pendency of the suit was come was come into notice and on into notice and on the said the said information the case file title Om Parkash Vs. information the case file title Om Parkash Vs. Jatinder Kumar was also summoned, which is Jatinder Kumar was also summoned, which is een the party qua the suit property. pending between the party qua the suit property. As per the facts of the pending case are that Lok As per the facts of the pending case are that Lok Raj and Hari Dass sons of Jagat Ram were the Raj and Hari Dass sons of Jagat Ram were the owners of the Ahata and shop bearing M.C. owners of the Ahata and shop bearing M.C. 16/12 and they rented out the said shop No.B-16/12 and they rented out the said shop and Ahata to Lachhman Dass. Lok Raj was died and Ahata to Lachhman Dass. Lok Raj w on 07.05.1993 and his estate was inherited by on 07.05.1993 and his estate was inherited by Rajinder Parkash, Varinder Kumar, Jatinder Rajinder Parkash, Varinder Kumar, Jatinder Kumar (D.H.) and Rekha Rani and Padma Vati. Kumar (D.H.) and Rekha Rani and Padma Vati. Hari Dass died on 06.02.1989 and his estate Hari Dass died on 06.02.1989 and his estate was inherited by his three sons namely Shiv Lal was inherited by his three sons namely Shiv Lal Gupta, Ram Lal Nabhi and Raghunandan Gupta, Ram Lal Nabhi an Parshad Gupta and three daughters namely Parshad Gupta and three daughters namely Sarla Devi, Sheela Devi and Darshna Devi. Sarla Devi, Sheela Devi and Darshna Devi. Sarla Devi d/o Hari Dass expired and her estate Sarla Devi d/o Hari Dass expired and her estate was inherited by Asha Rani, Parveen Singla, was inherited by Asha Rani, Parveen Singla, Satish Mittal and Vinod Mittal. Sheela Devi has Satish Mittal and Vinod Mittal. Sheela Devi has also expired and her estate was inherited by also expired and he Manju Rani, Parveen Rani, Priyanka, Anil Kumar Manju Rani, Parveen Rani, Priyanka, Anil Kumar and Parveen Kumar. Ram Lal Nabhi son of Hari and Parveen Kumar. Ram Lal Nabhi son of Hari Dass also executed a Will in favour of his Dass also executed a Will in favour of his daughter Prem Lata and Raghunndan Parshad's daughter Prem Lata and Raghunndan Parshad's property inherited by his wife Kailash Vati and property inherited by his wife Kailash Vati and children namely Shashi Bala Jindal, Visakha his children namely Shashi Bala Jindal, Visakha Gupta, Dinesh Gupta and Naresh Gupta. Further Gupta, Dinesh Gupta and Naresh Gupta. Further Shiv Lal Gupta son of Hari Dass had gifted his Shiv Lal Gupta son of Hari Dass had gifted his share in favour of Gaushala Committee vide share in favour of Gaushala Committee vide deed No.783 dated 22.05.1995 and the said deed No.783 dated 22.05.1995 and the said property was purchased ½ share by Om property was purchased ½ share by Parkash i.e. now plaintiff, from legal heirs of Hari Parkash i.e. now plaintiff, from legal heirs of Hari SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.17 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2200-2013(O&M) 2013(O&M) [8] Dass, Gaushala Committee, Rampura Phul and Dass, Gaushala Committee, Rampura Phul and Anita Rani wife of Pawan Kumar, vide his sale Anita Rani wife of Pawan Kumar, vide his sale deeds No.2416 dated 11.08.2010, sale deed deeds No.2416 dated 11.08.2010, sale deed No.2227 dated 01.09.2010, sale deed No.2769 No.2227 dated 01.09.2010, sale deed No.2769 dated 13.09.2010, sale deed No.133 dated dated 13.09.2010, sale d 09.04.2013. it is further pleaded that Gaushala 09.04.2013. it is further pleaded that Gaushala Committee had sold 9 sq, yards i.e. 7.48 share Committee had sold 9 sq, yards i.e. 7.48 share of the shop vide sale deed dated 12.03.2007 in of the shop vide sale deed dated 12.03.2007 in favour of Anita Rani who further sold it to favour of Anita Rani who further sold it to plaintiff. (the copies of the sale deeds are also plaintiff. (the copies of the sale deeds are also annexed herewith the report as Annexure exed herewith the report as Annexure-H, Annexure-I and Annexure I and Annexure-J). Now, the said suit for possession by way of partition, is pending in for possession by way of partition, is pending in this court, wherein plaintiff claiming himself to be this court, wherein plaintiff claiming himself to be owner to the extent of ½ share in the suit owner to the extent of ½ share in the suit property. (Copy of the plaint Annexure-K is also property. (Copy of the attached herewith).” attached herewith).” 6. In view of the aforesaid detailed report, in the humble In view of the aforesaid detailed report, in the humble In view of the aforesaid detailed report, in the humble opinion of this Court, no cause is made out to interfere in the present opinion of this Court, no cause is made out to interfere in the present opinion of this Court, no cause is made out to interfere in the present opinion of this Court, no cause is made out to interfere in the present an exact revision petition especially when in the entire eviction petition, an exact revision petition especially when in the entire eviction petition, revision petition especially when in the entire eviction petition, measurement of the area of the demise measurement of has not been the area of the demised premises has not been failed to produce any mentioned. The petitioner/ landlord even failed to produce any mentioned. The petitioner/ landlord even mentioned. The petitioner/ landlord even document of title in his favour so as to establish that the demised document of title in his favour so as to establish that the demised document of title in his favour so as to establish that the demised document of title in his favour so as to establish that the demised and was rented out to the premises which was owned by him and was rented out to the premises which was owned by him premises which was owned by him respondent/ tenant measured 14’ x 43’. respondent/ tenant measured 7. Furthermore, a perusal of the record also shows that the Furthermore, a perusal of the record also shows that the Furthermore, a perusal of the record also shows that the i.e. demised shop is covered by two other shops from two sides i.e. demised shop is covered by two other shops demised shop is covered by two other shops right side shop owned by Paramjit Singh son of Udham Singh towards right side shop owned by Paramjit Singh son of Udham Singh right side shop owned by Paramjit Singh son of Udham Singh right side shop owned by Paramjit Singh son of Udham Singh and towards left side shop owned by Harpreet Singh son of Balwinder and towards left side shop owned by Harpreet Singh son of Balwinder and towards left side shop owned by Harpreet Singh son of Balwinder and towards left side shop owned by Harpreet Singh son of Balwinder Singh. SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.17 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2200-2013(O&M) 2013(O&M) [9] 8. In such circumstances, especially in view of the detailed In such circumstances, especially in view of the detailed In such circumstances, especially in view of the detailed report dated 07.11.2015 submitted by the learned Executing Court, no report dated 07.11.2015 submitted by the learned Executing Court, no report dated 07.11.2015 submitted by the learned Executing Court, no report dated 07.11.2015 submitted by the learned Executing Court, no case is made out to interference in the impugned case is made out order dated to interference in the impugned order dated 23.02.2013 passed by the learned Executing Court. passed by the learned Executing Court. 9. 10. The revision petition is dismissed. The revision petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the petition, no orders are required In view of dismissal of the petition, no orders are required In view of dismissal of the petition, no orders are required 2015 seeking impleadment of the to be passed in CM No. 19315-2015 seeking impleadment of the 2015 seeking impleadment of the to be passed in CM No. 19315 Pending misc. application(s), if any, applicants as respondents. Other Pending misc. application(s), if any, Pending misc. application(s), if any, applicants as respondents.
Decision
shall also stand disposed of. shall also stand disposed of. 11. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall be at It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall be at It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall be at , if any, in accordance with law. liberty to avail his other remedies, if any, in accordance with law. liberty to avail 15.09.2025 sanjay ( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.17 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document