CR No. 6417 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6417 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.3.2010 Kashmir Singh and others .. Petitioners v. Haryana Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R. S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the respondent. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 12.10.2007, passed by Additional District Judge (exercising the powers of Tribunal under the Wakf Act), Kurukshetra (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby the suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits filed by the respondent against the petitioners was decreed and it was directed that the respondent shall be entitled to seek possession of the suit property and further held entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 22,860/- on account of mesne profits for a period of three years preceding the date of filing of the suit along with future mesne profits. On 4.2.2008, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sought time to seek instructions as to whether the petitioners were ready and willing to pay the market rent. Thereafter, the petition was adjourned for a number of times. On 10.3.2008, notice of motion was issued and interim order of dispossession was passed in favour of the petitioners subject to their depositing the mesne profits, as assessed by the learned trial court. Thereafter, again the petition was adjourned for a number of hearings. On 27.1.2010, learned counsel for the petitioners sought adjournment to seek instructions from the petitioners as to whether the interim order, passed by this Court on 10.3.2008, has been complied with or not. On 23.2.2010, it was stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that he was unable to make any statement regarding deposit of mesne profits. However, the stand of learned counsel for the respondent was that till date, nothing has been deposited. Accordingly, the interim stay granted on 10.3.2008 was vacated. CR No. 6417 of 2007 [2] Considering the conduct of the petitioners and also that even before the Tribunal, the suit for possession was decreed on account of non-payment of rent and even thereafter the petitioners have neither paid mesne profits, as assessed by the Tribunal nor as was to be paid in terms of the order passed by this Court, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 3.3.2010 mk