This order, delivered in the absence of any party due to a bar association resolution, dismisses a writ petition as infructuous because the underlying civil suit had been dismissed for default following the efflux of time since its presentation.
Quashing of order dated 12.4.2001 and dismissal of writ application as 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.
O.J.C. No.6543 of 2001
13.8.2015
Lawyers have abstained from the Court work due to resolution passed by the Hig
h Court Bar Association.
None appears.
On 3.8.2015 and 10.8.2015 also none appeared.
Perused the contents of the writ application.
The petitioner has prayed, inter alia, to quash the order dated 12.4.2001 pass
ed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Balasore in Misc.Case Case No.449/2000 (arising o
ut of T.S.1031 of 2000).
The Registry has ascertained that the aforesaid title suit was transferred to
the court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Balasore on 17.12.2004. Again t
he same was transferred to the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jaleswar on 9.4.2010. While
the matter stood thus, the suit was dismissed for default on 14.9.2011.
In view of the same, by efflux of time, the writ application has become infruc
tuous.
Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed as infructuous.
Dr.A.K.Rath, J.
Dr. A.K. Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court