IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 260 of 1982 Date of Order: 24th October, 2008 Indian Red Cross Society ...Appellant Versus Dalip Singh & Others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.C.Pathela, Advocate for respondent no.5. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees dated 09.10.1978 and 13.11.1981 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda and the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda decreeing the suit filed by the respondent No.1 and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants respectively. Dalip Singh-respondent no.1 filed a suit for declaration challenging the order dated 11.04.1975 cancelling his lease deed, which was valid for a period of one year. The learned trial court decreed the suit by holding that the order of cancellation was illegal and arbitrary and, therefore, granted a decree of mandatory injunction by directing the appellant to restore possession of stall no.3 to Dalip Singh. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. Counsel for the appellant and counsel for respondent no.5 state that the premises in dispute were leased out to Dalip Singh for a period of one year. The lease was cancelled and Dalip Singh was dispossessed. Regular Second Appeal No. 260 of 1982 -2- The suit was decreed, but the appellant has in the meanwhile transferred the ownership of the shops to the Nagar Palika, Bathinda respondent no.5. The Nagar Palika has demolished the shops, raised new construction and inducted new tenants and as the original premises, leased out to respondent no.1, have ceased to exist and the original period of lease of one year has since expired, therefore, the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, directing restoration of possession cannot be executed. It is, therefore, submitted that as the decree has been rendered infructuous, the appeal be disposed of as such. During the pendency of this appeal Dalip Singh passed away and his legal representatives were impleaded as respondents. Despite service, they have not put in appearance. I have heard counsel for the appellant and in view of the facts noticed herein above, the prayer in the suit for restoration of possession has been rendered infructuous. The lease, of one year, expired in the year 1975. Even otherwise, the shops in dispute has been demolished and new shops have been constructed and new tenants have been inducted by the Nagar Palika. It would also be necessary to mention here that respondent no.1 has passed away but his legal representatives despite having been impleaded as parties have failed to put in appearance and, therefore, the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below have been rendered inexecutable. In view of what has been stated herein above, the appeal has been rendered infructuous and is, therefore, disposed of as infructuous, with liberty to the legal representatives of Dalip Singh to seek revival of the appeal, in case they have any subsisting grievance. October 24 , 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE