This writ petition challenging a judgment allowing an appeal was dismissed as infructuous because the underlying civil suit had been dismissed for default after efflux of time.
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.5398 of 2005
04.08.2015 Challenge is made to the judgment dated 01.03.2005 passed by the learned Addit
ional District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in F.A.O. No.46/03. By the said order, learned lower appel
late court allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 28.7.2003 passed by the learned Ci
vil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kujanga in I.A. No.61/03 whereby and whereunder the parties had been di
rected to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Registry has ascertained that the C.S. No.36 of 2003 on the file of learned Ci
vil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kujanga has been dismissed for default on 10.8.2007. The same was resto
red to file on 28.7.2008. Again the same was dismissed for default on 7.12.2009.
In view of the same, by efflux of time the writ petition has become infructuou
s. 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