The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order declaring the applicant's application under Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. infructuous. The Court held no infirmity warranted interference, noting the stay application was pending before the District Judge.
CMP and Misc. cases dismissed; urged issuance of urgent certified copy.
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.
CMP No.248 of 2016
&
Misc. Case No.244 of 2016
02. 19.02.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
01.10.2015, passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack, in R.F.A. No.128 of 2015, holding t
hat the petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. has become inf
ructuous.
Considering the submissions made, I do not find any infirmity
in the impugned order so as to warrant any interference.
It is open for the petitioner to pursue his application before
the learned District Judge, Cuttack, filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., which is state
d to be pending.
CMP and Misc. are accordingly dismissed.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
S.C. Parija, J.
uks
uks
3 issues framed by the court
Whether order declaring application under Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. as infructuous attracted interference by the High Court.
Whether withdrawal of stay application makes the application under Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. infructuous.
Whether the petition needed to be remanded for merits review before the learned District Judge.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
S. C. Parija
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court