The High Court of Judicature at Orissa disposed of the writ petition as infructuous because the underlying title suit filed by the petitioner was dccrecd on 8.2.2008 via compromise, rendering the challenge to the interim vacating of status quo time-barred.
The writ application is 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.11699 of 2003
13.8.2015
Lawyers have abstained from the Court work due to resolution passed by the Hig
h Court Bar Association.
None appears.
On 4.8.2015 and 10.8.2015 also none appeared.
Perused the contents of the writ application.
Challenge is made to the order dated 29.9.2003 passed by the learned Additiona
l District Judge, Kendrapra in Misc.Appeal No.63 of 2001 dismissing the same and thereby conf
irming the order dated 16.10.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Kendrapara
in Misc.Case No.66 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the learned trial court vacated the order
of status quo dated 23.2.2001. Misc.Case No.66 of 2001 arises out of T.S.No.71 of 2001.
The Registry has ascertained that the aforesaid title suit was decreed on 8.2.
2008 in terms of the compromise.
In view of the same, by efflux of time, the writ application has become infruc
tuous.
Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed as infructuous.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court