AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 241 wordsS.K. Mishra, J
Heard Mr. M.C.Kandpal, learned Senior Counsel,, assisted by Mr. S.S.Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition has become infructuous.
On perusal of the record it reveals that the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 11.08.2010 and 26.05.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Kumaun Mandal, Nainital in Revision No. 137 of 2009-2010 & Revision No. 28 of 2009-2010 and the order dated 20.03.2009 passed by the Assistant Collector, Almora.
It is submitted that the original suit was filed before the Assistant Collector for declaration or for a declaratory decree. An application was filed by the present petitioner for impleadment in that proceedings. However, in that proceeding, the application was rejected then he preferred an appeal and a Revision. The Revision was dismissed which is under challenge in this writ application. In the meantime, the declaratory decree has been disposed of. The appeal has been disposed of and the Second Appeal by this Court. It is also submitted that the parties went before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter has already been disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So, this Writ Application has becomes infructuous and it is dismissed, as such.
There shall be no order as to the costs.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted to the petitioner on proper application.