CWP No.8127 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.8127 of 1989 Date of decision: 11.2.2010 Surjeet Singh & others ...Petitioners Versus Additional Director, Consolidation & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. O.P. Dabla, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 8. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) Mr. Markan submits that in view of order dated September 26, 1989, whereby stay was vacated, the present petition has been rendered infructuous. According to him, the path has been in existence for more than 30 years now and both petitioners as well as respondents No.2 to 8 have been using the same. The order dated September 29, 1989, passed by this court (J.V. Gupta, J.) reads thus:- “At the time of motion hearing, operation of Annexure P-4, whereby a path of 2 Karams was allowed to Chand Ram respondent in the present writ petition, was stayed and notice regarding stay was issued. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. It has been stated therein that the petitioners have been compensated for the land on which the path has been given to Chand Ram respondent and, therefore, there was no cause of action to CWP No.8127 of 1989 2 agitate the matter before this Court. It has been further stated in para 5 of the written statement, that “since the path exists there at the spot and the answering respondents have been using the same so there was no necessity to raise any objection. When the petitioners and other respondents tried to obstruct the answering respondents from the path, then after inquiry it transpired that in papers this path is not shown and then immediately a petition under Section 42 of the Act was moved.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the respondents are suffering irreparable loss because of the stay order. Since the path already existed and by virtue of the stay order, the respondents have been restrained from using the same. In these circumstances, the ex parte stay order dated 20.6.1989 is vacated.” Case has been called out several times since morning. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners. The case was also displayed on the digital display board in order to await counsel for the petitioners. But none has appeared till now. It is 4.00 P.M. Court is now rising. It appears that petitioners are no longer interested in pursuing this petition. Dismissed for non-prosecution. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 11.2.2010 'rajpal'