Punjab-Haryana High Court
R.N. Sharma vs U.T. Chandigarh And Others on 20 August, 2013
CRM-M-16417 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-16417 of 2011
Date of Decision : 20.08.2013
R.N. Sharma .....Petitioner
Versus
U.T. Chandigarh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
Present: None for the petitioner.
Ms. Ashima Mor, Addl. P.P. for U.T Chandigarh
Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Advocate
for respondents No. 4 and 5.
R.P. Nagrath, J. (Oral)
The prayer made in the instant petition is that private respondents are causing hindrance in the enjoyment of property/house owned by the petitioner and the Police is not taking action despite a complaint made on 12.05.2011. When this matter was taken up on 02.02.2012, following order was passed:-
"Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 on instructions from respondent No. 4, who is present in the Court, states that respondent No. 4 is ready to give undertaking before this Court that he shall allow the petitioner to use the entire ground floor except the garage where the luggage of his sons, who are in the army and posted in field areas, is lying and the petitioner will also be allowed to use the stairs case leading to the meter subject to Mr. Pardeep Sharma, who is younger son of the petitioner, giving an affidavit that he will not occupy the said premises in Jitender Kumar 2013.08.22 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-16417 of 2011 -2- any manner either before or after the life time of the petitioner and shall have no concern with House No. 216, Sector 33A, Chandigarh and that the premises will not be rented by the petitioner or the younger son Pardeep Sharma.
The petitioner, who is present in the Court, states that his younger son Mr. Pardeep Sharma will have no objection to give the said affidavit in case the respondent allows him access to garage as well.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that only dispute that remains to be settled is qua the occupation of the garage.
Adjourned to 06.03.2012 to enable both the parties to consider the same i.e. giving up the occupation of the garage."
Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 states that respondents would always abide by the offer made in the said order.
The record would show that none is appearing for the petitioner for the past about 5 dates.
So I do not see any reason to adjourn the matter any more. In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his representation already made or may make any fresh representation and to avail of any other appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
August 20, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
jk JUDGE
Jitender Kumar
2013.08.22 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh