In a writ petition, the court dismissed the matter for non-prosecution after the petitioner alleged a settlement via a Deed of Agreement and expressed lack of interest in continuing the litigation.
Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution.
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.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010006542014
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 1048/2014
1:DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH
S/O SRI UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH, R/O G.N.B. ROAD, P.O. and P.S. and DISTTINSUKIA, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:MONESWAR BARMAN and 2 ORS
S/O LT. SOMESWAR BARMAN, R/O NO.1 BORBIL, DIGBOI, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM
2:AMAR DAS S/O NO. KNOWN R/O BACKSIDE OF CORNATION CINEMA HALL P.O. P.S. and DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM
3:BHASKAR DUTTA ADVOCATE TINSUKIA BAR ASSOCIATION TINSUKIA P.O. P.S. and DIST- TINSUKIA ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A K GUPTA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.M K CHOUDHURY
Linked Case : MC 865/2014
Page No.# 2/3
1:DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH
VERSUS
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R S MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent :
Linked Case : MC 708/2014
VERSUS
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P J SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 03-06-2019
No one appears for the petitioner on call.
Mr. P. Bharadwaj appears for all the respondents.
The Order dated 11.07.2018 states that “Mr. A.K Gupta, learned counsel, who had appeared for the petitioners, submit that the has filed an affidavit seeking leave to withdraw himself as
Page No.# 3/3
counsel for the petitioner, because of non-cooperation of his client.
Perused the affidavit filed on 08.12.2017.
Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to withdraw.
Office to issue notice to the petitioner so that alternative arrangement is made, failing which, Court may consider passing appropriate order(s).
List after a month.”
The Office note dated 27.05.2019 states as follows:-
“Unserved notice has been received regarding communication made vide Memo No. HC XXII – 1559/WP dated 19.07.2018 and the same is kept on record.”
The counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute raised in the present petition has been settled by the parties by the Deed of Agreement executed on 13.05.2017.
The Deed of Agreement dated 13.05.2017 is made a part of the record and marked as Annexure “X”.
As the petitioner does not seem to be interested in pursuing the matter, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for non-prosecution due to settlement of the dispute between the parties.
DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH
MONESWAR BARMAN
AMAR DAS
BHASKAR DUTTA
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
