This is a one-line order where the High Court dismissed a revisional application because the petitioners, having compromised with the opposite party, were unwilling to proceed with it.
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.
35 29.08. 2023
Ct 237
rup
CRR 279 of 2017 IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2017 (Old No: CRAN 2669 of 2017) CRAN 4 of 2018 ( Old No: CRAN 32 of 2018)
Girish Chandra Das & Anr. Versus State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Purnasis Bhunya … for the petitioner.
Ms. Snigdha Saha, Mr. Priyanjit Kundu. … for the opposite party no.2.
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are not willing to proceed with this revisional application because of compromise between the parties to this revisional application and has filed one a written instruction of petitioners themselves. The written instruction be kept with the record.
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the private opposite no.2 is present.
Considering all facts and circumstances, the revisional application stands dismissed being not pressed. All connected applications also stand dismissed.
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Girish Chandra Das & Anr.
State of West Bengal & Anr.
Bibhas Ranjan De
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
