The High Court dismissed a revisional application (CRR 2902 of 2017) as it was not pressed by the petitioner, who filed written instructions stating no intent to proceed.
Permission granted to the petitioner to file a fresh revisional application in the future.
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.
08.03. 2022 item No.3. n.b. ct. no. 34
CRR 2902 of 2017
Sri Sushil Mitruka
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Amales Roy, Mr. Aman Gupta,
…..for the Petitioner
Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Mainak Gupta
…..for the State
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Ms. Jeenia Rudra, Ms. Sahili De
…For the opposite party.
Mr. Roy, learned advocate appears for the petitioner and
files written instructions. Learned advocate submits that he do not intend to proceed with the revisional application.
Mr. Ganguly, learned Senior Advocate appears for the private opposite party no.2.
Mr. Roychoudhury, learned advocate appears for the
State.
In view of the submission advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the revisional application being CRR 2902 of 2017 is dismissed as not pressed.
Let the written instruction be kept with the record.
The petitioner is granted liberty to approach this court and file afresh.
2
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
( Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
Sri Sushil Mitruka
State of West Bengal
Tirthankar Ghosh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
