Mohd. Naseeb Khan vs. M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Lltd.

Held

The Court held that the Second Appeals had become infructuous. This was based on a memo filed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 (HPCL) which enclosed a fresh land lease agreement dated February 3, 2021, executed between the legal heirs of the original appellant and the respondents. The Court reasoned that the execution of this new lease agreement resolved the underlying cause of action for the appeals. Consequently, both Second Appeals were dismissed as infructuous. Regarding the contempt case, the Court noted that in light of the fresh lease agreement, the parties were not pursuing the continuation of contempt proceedings. Therefore, the contempt case was closed. No order as to costs was made in any of the proceedings.

Facts

The appellants, legal heirs of Mohd. Naseeb Khan, filed Second Appeals challenging the judgments and decrees of the lower appellate court. The appeals concerned a petroleum outlet operated by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) through its dealer, Tarnaka Agencies, at premises in Tarnaka, Secunderabad. The dispute arose due to a road widening issue by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, which impacted the location of the petroleum outlet. The appellants sought to restrain the respondents from shifting the outlet within the premises. A contempt case was also filed alleging violation of a High Court order dated April 21, 2006, in SAMP. No. 1070 of 2006 in S.A. No. 448 of 2006.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Second Appeals have become infructuous due to subsequent events, specifically the execution of a fresh land lease agreement between the parties? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the original dispute regarding the location of the petroleum outlet and the potential shifting thereof was the subject matter of the appeals. The execution of a new lease agreement, if it resolves the underlying dispute or alters the circumstances that led to the litigation, would render the appeals infructuous. Respondent's contention: The respondent (HPCL) contended that a fresh land lease agreement dated February 3, 2021, was executed between the legal heirs of the original appellant and the respondents. This new agreement, by its terms, effectively resolved the issues that formed the basis of the appeals, thereby making the appeals infructuous. The respondent also argued that the contempt case was no longer maintainable in light of this new agreement.