IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1852 (MS) OF 2001 Ayush Agarwal ……..Petitioner Versus District Judge, U.S. Nagar and others ……Respondents With WRIT PETITION NO. 1124 (MS) OF 2002 A.K. Agarwal ……..Petitioner Versus District Judge, U.S. Nagar and others ……Respondents With WRIT PETITION NO. 1125 (MS) OF 2002 Saurabh Agarwal ……..Petitioner Versus District Judge, U.S. Nagar and others ……Respondents With WRIT PETITION NO. 1853 (MS) OF 2001 Smt. Gargi Agarwal ……..Petitioner Versus District Judge, U.S. Nagar and others ……Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sarvesh Agarwal, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 6. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of money against respondent nos. 3 to 6 on the ground that the cheque issued by the respondents for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- had bounced. Apart from filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable 2 Instruments Act, it transpires that respondent nos. 3 to 6 filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the C.P.C.) for stay of the suit on the ground that the respondents had also filed a suit before Delhi High Court for declaration that the cheque issued by them should be declared as null and void. The petitioner filed his objection against the application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. The trial court after considering the matter allowed the application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. and stayed the suit of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a revision, which was dismissed. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders has filed the present writ petition. It has now come on record that the suit filed by the defendants before Delhi High Court has been dismissed in the year 2004. Consequently, there is no impediment for the trial court to proceed with the suit of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, this petition has become infructuous and is dismissed as such with the observation that the trial court should proceed with the suit since there is no impediment. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 27.08.2010 SP