Regular Second Appeal No. 4214 of 2006 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 4214 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.8.2011 Raj Kumar and Others …Appellants Versus Punjab Wakf Board …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant No.1. Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for appellants No.2 and 3. Mr. Sandeep Punchi, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Civil Misc. No. 9230-C of 2011 The present application has been filed under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, for impleading the persons, stated in paragraph No.2 thereof, as legal heirs of appellant No.1-Raj Kumar. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection thereto. Hence, the present application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. The persons, as stated in paragraph No.2 of the application, are brought on record as legal heirs of appellant No.1-Raj Kumar. The Registry is directed to amend memo of parties. Civil Misc. No. 4528-C of 2010 This application has been filed by the respondent to say that Regular Second Appeal No. 4214 of 2006 (O&M) 2 the present appeal has been rendered infructuous on the ground that the appellants had relinquished the possession of the land in dispute to some other persons. Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate, appearing for the legal heirs of appellant No.1, has filed a short reply to the application, stating therein that a fresh lease deed (Annexure P2) has been executed by the Punjab Wakf Board in favour of Nand Lal Goyal, Sunita Gupta and Rahul Goyal. Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate, appearing for appellants No.2 and 3, has submitted that despite various efforts having been made, no instructions are coming forward and thus, he is not in a position to deny the averments made in the present application. In view of the fact that the legal heirs of appellant No.1 have admitted that the Punjab Wakf Board had executed a lease deed in favour of some other persons, the present application is allowed and the main appeal viz. Regular Second Appeal No. 4214 of 2006 is taken up for final hearing. Regular Second Appeal No. 4214 of 2006 In view of the order, passed in Civil Misc. No. 4528-C of 2010, as well as statement made by Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate, counsel for appellant No.1 and Mr. Sandeep Punchi, Advocate, counsel for the respondent, that this appeal has become infructuous, it is dismissed as such. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 12, 2011 “DK”