C.R. No.3231 of 2011 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3231 of 2011 (O & M) Date of decision: 30.11.2011 Smt. Rupinder Kaur alias Rupa Murgai .... Petitioner Versus Maninder Singh Bularia and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Ms. Jatinder Jit Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Naresh Kumar Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.: (Oral) The plaintiff-petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that order dated 27.04.2011 passed by the trial Court, Kharar, whereby an application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner seeking direction of the Court that the counsel for the defendant-respondent namely, Sh. Naresh Kumar Bansal, Advocate, who is signatory to different documents and is interested party in the litigation, be restrained from conducting the trial of the case on behalf of the defendant-respondent. According to the learned counsel, the said application has been wrongly rejected by the trial court which has C.R. No.3231 of 2011 (O & M) ::2:: compelled the petitioner to approach this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent, Sh. Naresh Kumar Bansal, Advocate has filed his affidavit along with an application stating therein that he may be allowed to withdraw his power of attorney as counsel for the respondent from this Court as well as from the trial court, Kharar. The same is taken on record. In view of the above, the present revision petition has been rendered infructuous and the same is disposed of as such. Needless to say that Sh. Naresh Kumar Bansal, Advocate shall not appear as counsel for the defendant-respondent before the trial court. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that liberty may be granted to the petitioner to move an application for seeking deletion of evidence which has been recorded during the time Sh. Naresh Kumar Bansal, Advocate, was representing the defendant-respondent in the trial court. It shall be open to the petitioner to seek remedy available to him in accordance with law in that regard. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 30, 2011 sukhpreet