The High Court dismissed the pending revisional application (C.R.R. No. 182 of 2011) for default, noting the petitioner's absence and lack of interest to proceed since 2011.
C.R.R. No. 182 of 2011 be dismissed for default.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
AD. 6. April 13, 2022. MNS.
C.R.R. No. 182 of 2011
In Re: Khokan Sahoo @ Shyamapada Sahoo
…petitioner.
Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Mr. Dipankar Paramanick
…for the State.
Petitioner is not represented today, when the matter is called on for hearing, although the State is represented.
On the earlier occasion the petitioner was also not represented.
The case is pending since 2011 and I have reason to believe that the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the revisional application any further.
Let C.R.R. No. 182 of 2011 be dismissed for
default.
(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee,J.)
Khokan Sahoo @ Shyamapada Sahoo
The State
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
