IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1388 of 2009 1. Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited through Dy. General Manager (Construction), Pala Maneri Project, Maneri. 2. Executive Engineer (Maintenance) Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd., Maneri Bhali Project stage-II, Joshiyara District Uttarkashi. … Petitioners. Versus Ramesh Chandra S/O Sri Keshri Lal, R/O village Heena, Patti Barahat, Tehsil Bhatwari, District Uttarkashi. … Respondent. Mr. P.C.Bisht, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. Date March 17, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Civil Misc. Application No. 1902 of 2011) Heard. By means of this application (No. 1902 of 2011), the respondent has asserted that in the present writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 11-8-2009 passed by the District Judge Uttarkashi in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3 of 2009, Ramesh Chandra Vs. Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam, arising out of Original Suit No. 34 of 2008 Ramesh Chandra Vs. Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam and that the writ petition was filed against an interlocutory order passed in aforesaid Miscellaneous Appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has contended that the Original Suit No. 34 of 2008, filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein, had already been finally dismissed by the trial court on 3-9-2010, therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous and the same be dismissed as infructuous. Learned counsel for the respondent has shown photocopy of the judgment and decree passed in the said suit. The same be kept on record. 2 A perusal of the judgment and decree dated 3-9-2010 passed by the trial court shows that while the original suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed, the counter-claim of the petitioners-defendants had been decreed with cost as mentioned in the order. Since the Original Suit No. 34 of 2008 had already been decided by the trial court, therefore, all the interim orders arising out of the said suit had merged in the final judgment and decree. In view of the above fact, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. (The Misc. Application No.1902 of 2011 stands disposed of.) (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP