The court disposed of interlocutory applications to permit the withdrawal of a suit for partition and a probate petition. Finding no opposition from the defendants/petitioners, the suit and petition were dismissed as withdrawn with parties bearing their own costs.
CS(OS) 372/2010 and TEST.CAS. 43/2010 dismissed as withdrawn; parties to bear own costs.
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.
$~8&21.
Through: Mr. Joydeep Sharma, Adv. versus
RAMESH ANAND & OTHERS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Sunil Arya, Adv. for D-1,2,3 and 7 to 11. Mr. Y.S. Chauhan, Adv. for D-4&5. Mr. B.S. Tiwari, Adv. for D-6. AND
THE STATE ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
O R D E R % 20.02.2018 IA No.13304/2017 & IA No.13305/2017 (of the plaintiff and of the defendant no.6, both under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC) in CS(OS) 372/2010.
CS(OS) 372/2010 & TEST.CAS. 43/2010
page 1 of 2
TEST.CAS. 43/2010.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
FEBRUARY 20, 2018 „pp‟..
CS(OS) 372/2010 & TEST.CAS. 43/2010
page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the withdrawal of the suit for partition and the probate petition should be allowed since there is no objection from the opponents.
Whether to allow the dismissal of CS(OS) 372/2010 as withdrawn under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC.
Whether to dismiss TEST.CAS. 43/2010 (probate petition) as withdrawn without opposition.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramesh Anand
The State
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
