Nasim Ahmed v. Raj Vardhan Patodia & Ors.
Calcutta HCCO/863/2012
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
In a writ petition under Article 226/227 filed on 14.03.2012 challenging an order dismissing an application to reject a plaint, the Court observed the petition was never moved before it. The application to recall the order dated 14.03.2012 was dismissed for default without cost.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
03.10.2023 Ct.No. 236 Sl. 26 Amalranjan
¶2
C.O. 863 of 2012
¶3
Nasim Ahmed
¶4
Vs Raj Vardhan Patodia and ors.
¶5
- The parties are not represented.
¶6
- This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed on 14th March, 2012 challenging the order No. 17 dated 5th March, 2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sealdah in title Suit No. 28 of 2011.
¶7
- By the order impugned, learned trial court was pleased to dismiss the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant seeking the rejection of plaint on the ground that the averments made in the plaint are not sufficient to prove the fact and to obtain relief.
¶8
- The order impugned does not merit any consideration. Moreover since filing, as the record reveals, the petition was never moved before this court, the application to recall the order dated 14.3.2012 stands dismissed for default, however, without cost.
¶9
( Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury,J. )
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
AI extract
Whether an application under Article 227 filed by default should be dismissed?
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- petitioner
Nasim Ahmed
- respondent
Raj Vardhan Patodia
Coram
AI extract
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Calcutta HC
- Decided on
- · October
- Registered
- Case no.
- CO/863/2012
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court