Completed eviction renders an appeal seeking additional time to vacate infructuous.

The appellants challenged an order directing them to vacate a property, following an earlier appellate order directing restoration of possession to Santi Jaiswal by evicting unauthorised encroachers.

The impugned order also directed the State to rehabilitate the appellants on an alternative plot, but the appeal was confined to seeking an extension of time to vacate.

At the hearing, the State informed the Court that the appellants had already been evicted.

1. Whether the appeal seeking an extension of time to vacate remained live after the appellants had already been evicted

2. Whether the appellate court could ensure implementation of the unchallenged direction requiring the State to rehabilitate the appellants

The Court applied the principle that an appeal confined to relief that has already spent its force may be dismissed as infructuous.

It also held that, in this appeal, it was beyond the Court’s jurisdiction to ensure implementation of the unchallenged rehabilitation direction; the appellants could instead approach the writ court for implementation and/or contempt relief.

No statute or precedent was cited.

Because the appeal sought only additional time to vacate and the evacuation had already occurred, the requested relief could no longer be granted, rendering the appeal infructuous.

The rehabilitation direction was not under challenge, and the appellate court declined to enforce it in these proceedings. The appellants were left free to seek appropriate relief from the writ court.

It clarified that the appellants could approach the writ court to seek implementation of the rehabilitation direction; there was no order as to costs.