The High Court dismissed a writ petition as infructuous because the underlying civil suit arising out of which the impugned orders originated was decreed in 2013.
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.3961 of 2006
13.8.2015
Lawyers have abstained from the Court work due to resolution passed by the Hig
h Court Bar Association.
None appears.
On 11.8.2015 also none appeared.
Perused the contents of the writ application.
Prayer in the writ application is to quash the order dated 23.2.2006 passed in
I.A.No.33 of 2006 arising out of C.S.No.247 of 2002, vide Annexure-9 and to implement the ord
er dated 18.7.2002, vide Annexure-3. The aforesaid orders arise out of Civil Suit No.247 of 20
02 of the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, First Court, Cuttack.
The Registry has ascertained that the aforesaid civil suit was decreed on 30.3
.2013.
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