$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. 295/2005 HINDUSTAN STEELWORKS CONST., LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Shipra Ghose, Advocate versus MALVIKA STEEL LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sharat Kapoor and Mr. C.B. Tiwari, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R % 17.10.2016 IA No.10207/2010 (u/o XL R.3 & 4 CPC) 1. This application is pending for over six years. The parties appear to have reached a stage where despite the removal of the machinery belonging to the Applicant is not being objected to by the non- Applicant, in the absence of proper identification of the machinery, its removal is not possible yet. 2. There appears to be no particular impediment to the parties sitting together and working out an acceptable solution to the problem. The applicant’s representatives should go over to the site and indicate which of the machinery belongs to the applicant. Once they put an identification mark on the machinery, the representative of SAIL will also endorse their No Objection thereupon. 3. The Court does not consider it necessary to pass any specific order for working out the above procedure since it is agreed upon by both the parties. If there is any difficulty hereafter in working out the solution, it will be open to the either party to approach this Court for directions. 4. The application stands disposed of. S.MURALIDHAR, J OCTOBER 17, 2016 Aj