IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 100/2010 Laxmi Narain Versus Atul Jain & Ors. ....... Date of Order :: 26.08.2010 ....... HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr. M.C. Bhoot ] Mr. Surendra Singh ] for the appellant Mr. G.R. Singhvi ] Mr. Pramendra Puri ] Mr. Jitendra Chopra ] Mr. Yuvraj Sonel ] Mr. Vijay Kumar Vyas ] Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari ] Mr. P.P. Goswami ] Mr. Sajjan Singh ] for the respondents ....... In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7109/2005, a Misc. Application No. 1028/2010 was submitted by one Sumesh S/o Mani Ram, by caste Ganchi, claiming himself to be power of attorney of Laxmi Narain S/o Girdhari Lal Sharma, through his counsel. The said application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 11.02.2010. Aggrieved of the said order dated 11.02.2010, this D.B. Special Appeal has been preferred by said Laxmi Narain through his power of attorney Sumesh, referred above. [1] Today an application has been submitted by the appellant through his counsel that in view of the settlement between the parties, the appellant has removed his possession from the disputed property and handed over the property to the respondent No. 1 Atul Jain. Learned counsel for the appellant also stated that in view of the settlement and surrender of tenency rights and handing over of possession of property by the appellant to respondent Atul Jain, this appeal has become infructuous. In view of above, the appeal since has become infructuous, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that two orders were passed by Division Bench in this special appeal which are dated 15.03.2010 and 24.05.2010, which were passed for making some interim arrangements with regard to the amount deposited. Since by those orders only interim arrangements were made with respect to the amount deposited and since the entire matter is before the learned Single Judge and this appeal is arising out of order passed on an application, therefore, any further appropriate order which may be needed to deal with the amount in pursuance of the order dated 15.03.2010 and 24.05.2010, can be passed by the learned Single Judge. [2] In view of the afore-mentioned reasons and as suggested by learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is dismissed and the learned Single Judge will be free to proceed in the matter which is pending before Single Bench as well as shall have powers and jurisdiction to pass appropriate order so as to give effect to orders dated 15.03.2010 and 24.05.2010 and if need be, to modify and alter these orders and pass appropriate order without intervention of us treating that this appeal since has been dismissed, therefore, the rest of the proceedings can be continued by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the observations made above. [KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI],J. [PRAKASH TATIA],J. Pramod [3]