Revisional application dismissed for non-prosecution after the petitioner, now divorced, filed a written instruction stating he did not wish to proceed.
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.
February 22, 2024 AD – 8 Ct. 33
SG CRR 2525 of 2012
In the matter of: Satish Kumar Ojha
… petitioner
Mr. Indrajit Adhikari … for the petitioner. Mr. Abir Chakraborty Mr. Ayan Mondal … for the opposite party No.1.
Learned advocates for the petitioner as well as the opposite party No.1 submit that they have filed vakalatnama in the department today.
The petitioner as well as the opposite party No.1 are present in Court. Their personal appearance are noted and dispensed with.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has filed a written instruction on behalf of the petitioner stating that the petitioner has obtained a decree of divorce on 20.12.2017 and is not willing to proceed with the present revisional application.
Let the written instruction be kept with the record.
Under such circumstances, the present revisional application is dismissed for non-prosecution.
( Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J. )
2
Satish Kumar Ojha
Opposite Party No.1
Ananya Bandyopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
