The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by lawyers due to a strike. Since the underlying suit was dismissed for default by the lower court, the challenge to the judgment became infructuous due to the efflux of time, leading to dismissal of the petition.
The writ petition was dismissed 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.
W.P.(C) No.11186 of 2006
14.08.2015 Lawyers have abstained from the Court work due to resolution passed by the Hig
h Court Bar Association.
None appears.
Perused the contents of the petition.
Challenge is made to the judgment dated 21.7.2006 passed by the learned Adhoc
Additional District Judge, Balasore in Misc. Appeal No.18/157 of 2006/2004. The impugned order
arises out of C.S. No.148 of 2004 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jaleswa
r.
Registry has ascertained that the aforesaid suit was dismissed for default on 27.7.2009. Thus, by efflux of time the writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly,
the same is dismissed as infructuous.
Dr.A.K.Rath, J.
2
Dr. A.K. Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court