The High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous because the underlying suit had been dismissed for default on 3.2.2007, rendering the matter time-barred.
The writ petition 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.6290 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 order dated 10.5.2004 passed by the learned Civil Jud
ge (Jr. Divn.), Berhampur in I.A. No.36/2004, vide Annexure-3 and the judgment dated 18.2.2006
passed by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Berhampur in F.A.O. No.05/2005, vide Annex
ure-4. Both the impugned orders arise out of C.S. No.71 of 2004 on the file of the learned Ci
vil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Berhampur.
Registry has ascertained that the suit was dismissed for default on 3.2.2007.
Thus, by efflux of time the writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly,
the same is dismissed as infructuous.
Dr.A.K.Rath, J.
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition has become infructuous due to dismissal of the underlying suit for default and efflux of time.
Dr.A.K.Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court