S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 1933/2009. Nonihal Singh & Anr. V/s. Uma Sankar & Ors. IN S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 1796/2009. Nonihal Singh & Anr. V/s. Uma Sankar & Ors. 1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 1933/2009. Nonihal Singh & Anr. V/s. Uma Sankar & Ors. IN S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 1796/2009. Nonihal Singh & Anr. V/s. Uma Sankar & Ors. Date of Order: 20th May, 2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr. Sanjay Tyagi, for the appellants. Mr. Manu Bhargava, for the respondents. These two appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned court below dated 3rd February, 2009 by which the two applications filed by the plaintiff appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 registered Civil Misc. Case No.59/2005 and 60/2005 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 1933/2009. Nonihal Singh & Anr. V/s. Uma Sankar & Ors. IN S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 1796/2009. Nonihal Singh & Anr. V/s. Uma Sankar & Ors. 2 have been dismissed by the learned court below. In para 11 of the impugned order passed in application No.59/2005 it has been held that the premises regarding which the suit has been filed by the tenant plaintiff with the prayer that the plaintiff appellant should not be dispossessed is no more in existence and the premises ceases to exist. This fact is not in dispute. Hence, the application was dismissed by the learned trial court. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the application No.59/2005 has in my opinion rightly been dismissed as no relief could not have been granted to the appellant against dispossession. So far as the subsequent application 60/2005 is concerned the learned court below has categorically come to a finding in para 12 of the impugned order that the plaintiff appellant is not in possession and the possession has already been handed over to the defendant No.1,2 & 3. This is a finding of fact. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 1933/2009. Nonihal Singh & Anr. V/s. Uma Sankar & Ors. IN S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 1796/2009. Nonihal Singh & Anr. V/s. Uma Sankar & Ors. 3 In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the application No.60/2005 has rightly been dismissed by the learned court below as no relief restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff could be granted. In the facts and circumstances, both the appeals and stay applications are dismissed summarily. (Dalip Singh),J. Tanwar/- Jr.P.A.