Writ petition challenging rejection in a Probate case was dismissed as the underlying Probate case was already dismissed during its pendency, rendering the petition infructuous.
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. 5714 of 2014
Amitabh Pankaj …… Petitioner Versus Saraswati Devi & Others …… Respondents --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, Advocate For the Respondents : ------------ ---------
06/Dated: 21/01/2020
Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the intervenor petition which was filed in the Probate Case which was rejected by the court below and for challenging that order this writ petition has been filed.
It is further submitted that during pendency of this writ petition the Probate Case No. 7 of 2006 has already been dismissed, hence this writ petition has become infructuous.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satayendra/
Amitabh Pankaj
Saraswati Devi & Others
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
