Writ petition dismissed as infructuous, having become time-barred, as the underlying civil suit was decreed years prior to the challenge.
Writ petition 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.11635 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 26.7.2006 passed by the learned Additi
onal District Judge, Jagatsignhpur in F.A.O. No.32 of 2005, vide Annexure-3. The impugned orde
r arises out of C.S. No.69 of 2005 on the file of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kujang.
Registry has ascertained that C.S. No.69 of 2005 was decreed on 9.7.2010.
Thus, by efflux of time the writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly,
the same is dismissed as infructuous.
2
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court