IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 2989 of 2003 Date of decision: 5.9.2009 Hukam Chand and Others ….. Petitioners Versus Bhartu and another ….. Respondents Present: Mr. L.N. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondent No.2. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 24.12.2002 (Annexure P9) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Panipat, order dated 2.4.2003 (Annexure P10) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat; memo dated 11.4.2003 (Annexure P11) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat and the application dated 15.5.2003 (Annexure P12) submitted by the Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Madlauda to the Naib Tehsildar, Madlauda. It is accepted position by the learned counsel for the respective parties that the primary challenge is to the order dated 24.12.2002 (Annexure P9) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panipat and the order dated 2.4.2003 (Annexure P10) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat respectively. CR No. 2989 of 2003 [2] Respondent No.1 Bhartu filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/petitioners from interfering in the peaceful possession of his agricultural land measuring 40 kanals comprised in Khasra No.150 min situated in the revenue estate of Mohiyuddinpur Thirana, Sub-Tehsil Madlauda, District Panipat. In terms of the order dated 24.12.2002 (Annexure P9) an ad interim injunction was granted in favour of plaintiff/respondent No.1 Bhartu; and the defendants/petitioners were restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land during the pendency of the suit except in due course of law. The defendants/petitioners aggrieved against the said order preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the order dated 2.4.2003 (Annexure P10) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners/defendants have filed the present petition. It is accepted position between the learned counsel for the parties that the learned trial Court has since decreed the suit of Bhartu (respondent No.1). The appeal against the decree of the trial Court filed by the defendants/petitioners has been dismissed by the Ist appellate Court on 7.3.2006. Thereafter, RSA No.1259 of 2006 has been disposed of by this Court on 10.8.2009. In view of the above, the present petition which is against interim orders has been rendered infructuous as the suit itself stands decided. Accordingly the revision is disposed of as infructuous. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 5, 2009 amit