C.R.No.7530 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.7530 of 2009 Date of Order: 22.2.2011 Harpal Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. Gurdev Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4/ Decree holders-claimants. Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for respondent No.14. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) In the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioners, who are legal representatives of one Gurnab Singh-judgment debtor, have approached this Court by assailing the order dated 8.8.2009 (P.3) whereby their objections against the sale of the property in execution proceeding were dismissed. As per the report of the Registry, the file of the present case appears to have been burnt in the fire incident in the High Court premises and as such the file requires reconstruction. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants (decree holders) has furnished a copy of the complete paper book in court today, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondent Nos.1 to 4 points C.R.No.7530 of 2009 #2# out that the learned MACT vide its award dated 7.4.1999 (P.1) had awarded a sum of Rs.3 lacs along with interest @ 12% per annum for the death of the husband-Buta Singh of respondent No.1 in a Motor Vehicular Accident. The decree was against the driver-Chuhar Singh and the owner of the offending vehicle, namely, M/s Kiratpur Sahib Finance Pvt Ltd as there was no valid insurance of the vehicle. It is stated that the said firm had three partners namely Kirpal, Satpal (respondent No.14) and said Gurnab Singh (two petitioners herein are legal representatives of Gurnab Singh). It is further stated that in execution, the property of Gurnab Singh was given out by the respondents- claimants and the decree was sought to be satisfied against his property. Learned counsel for contesting respondent Nos.1 to 4-claimants on instructions from their clients points out that during the pendency of the revision petition, the entire decretal amount has been deposited by the petitioners-JDs before the learned Tribunal and, therefore,the present revision petition has become infructuous. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for contesting respondents-claimants, present revision petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. It is, however, clarified that in case any grievance is still left to be addressed, the petitioners shall be entitled to recall the order by making appropriate application. February 22, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE