The High Court of Jharkhand allowed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which challenged an order in a money suit, to be withdrawn by the petitioner.
Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; trial court directed to expedite the suit.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (C) No. 792 of 2016
Rabi Narayan Mukherjee … … Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1.Dr. Rajendra Kumar Hazra 2.M/s. M.K.H. Medicare Associates Clinic, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3.Smt. Shikha Mukherjee 4.Smt. Ruksana Rahman … Respondents.
… Respondents.
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Rabi Narayan Mukherjee, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 3:- Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 4:- Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.
10/11.06.2019 This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, wherein, the order dated 14.10.2015, passed in Money Suit No. 86 of 2010 is under challenge, by which the trial court has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner, allowing him to accept the secondary evidence.
Mr. Rabi Narayan Mukherjee, the petitioner has appeared in person and submitted that the document, which he wanted to bring on record by way of secondary Evidence, original of which has been found out and therefore, he wants to make appropriate application before the learned trial court and in view thereof, he has sought for permission to withdraw this writ petition with an observation to direct the trial court to dispose of the Money Suit No. 86 of 2010 at an early date.
Appearance has been made on behalf of the Respondent nos.3 and 4.
Order-sheet reflects that the Respondent No. 2 has been deleted from the array of the list of the respondents, the notice upon the respondent no. 1 has validly been served as would be evident
from the order dated 20th July, 2018, but, none appeared to represent him.
Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has raised no objection with respect to the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, since he is not intending to press this writ petition, therefore, the writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
The trial court is directed to expedite the Suit without granting any unnecessary adjournments.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
APK
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rabi Narayan Mukherjee
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Hazra
M/s. M.K.H. Medicare Associates Clinic, Ranchi, Jharkhand
Smt. Shikha Mukherjee
Smt. Ruksana Rahman
Sujit Narayan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
