Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Gurnam Singh vs State Of Haryana . on 30 June, 2014
ð 1
ITEM NO.59 COURT NO.10 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 19728/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25/04/2013
in CR 3737/2012 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At
Chandigarh)
GURNAM SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondents(s)
(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
Date : 30/06/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V GOPALA GOWDA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shish Pal Laler, Adv.
Mr. N.P. Midha, Adv.
Mr. Balbir Singh Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddharath Batra, AAG
Mr. Sudhir Bisla, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The present special leave petition has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 25.04.2013 in Civil Revision No. 3737/2012 which has been disposed of along with Civil Writ Petition No. 11960/2012 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Naveen Kumar Date: 2014.07.04 petitions. We have been apprised by Mr. Hooda, learned 16:57:43 IST Reason: senior counsel appearing for the State of Haryana that against the order passed in writ petition, the affected 2 parties had preferred Letters Patent Appeals and the same have been allowed and the State is contemplating to file a special leave petition.
Be it noted that civil revision had arisen before the High Court from an interlocutory order. As there has been subsequent change of events, nothing can be adjudicated in this special leave petition. We have been apprised at the Bar that the suit instituted by the plaintiffs-petitioners is pending for adjudication. Regard being had to the same, we direct the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the suit within three months hence in accordance with law.
In the course of hearing we have been apprised that the petitioners are continuing as conductors in the Department of Transport, Haryana. Mr. Hooda, learned senior counsel appearing for the State very fairly stated that he has no objection if the petitioners are allowed to continue till the disposal of the suit. It is so ordered.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the special leave petition stands disposed of without any order as to costs.
(NAVEEN KUMAR) (RENUKA SADANA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER