Civil Revision No.2993 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2993 of 1993 Date of decision: July 23, 2009 Maghar Singh and another …..PETITIONERS Versus Mukhtiar Singh and others …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: None for the parties. T.P.S.MANN, J. (Oral): Suit for possession filed by the plaintiffs-respondents was decreed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Dhuri on 29.8.1992. Aggrieved of the same, the defendants filed an appeal. As the appeal had been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, an application was also filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur did not find any ground for condoning the delay and consequently, dismissed the application on 16.4.1993. The said order has been challenged by the defendants-petitioners by filing this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It came up for motion hearing for the first time on 4.11.1993, when no one appeared for the petitioners. The hearing was adjourned to 8.11.1993. On the said date, learned counsel for the petitioners was present and on his oral request, the delay in re-filing the revision was condoned. Notice of motion was also issued to the respondents for an actual date in January 1994. On 10.1.1994, fresh notices were issued to the respondents. Lateron, the Civil Revision No.2993 of 1993 -2- respondents were duly served and represented by their counsel before this Court. On 27.4.1994 after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, this Court admitted the revision. From a perusal of the file, it is revealed that the defendants- petitioners never applied for stay of execution of the decree for possession which was granted by the trial Court on 29.8.1992. Also, on the various dates fixed for hearing of the revision, no prayer was made, even orally, so as to seek stay of the execution of the decree, nor any such order passed by this Court. As is apparent from the above, the plaintiffs-respondents had secured a decree for possession way back in the year 1992. This decree must have been executed by now. Moreover, no one has put in appearance for any of the parties today at the time of final hearing of the revision. Under these circumstances, the challenge of the defendants- petitioners to the decree passed by the learned trial Court has practically been rendered meaningless. In view of the above, the present revision is rendered infructuous and disposed of, as such. In case, any cause is left with the defendants-petitioners to proceed with the matter, they shall be at liberty to file an application in this Court. (T.P.S.MANN) July 23, 2009 JUDGE Pds