IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.5006 of 2011 Date of Decision.04.11.2011 Chandu son of Sh. Bihari Lal and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Indrish Goyal, Addl. A.G, Haryana Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 states that grievance of the petitioner was that lease deed has not been registered and after filing of the petition, the lease deed has been registered and the same has become infructuous. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner also admits that the document has been registered. The writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 04, 2011 Pankaj*