Subash v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The Writ Petition, pending since 1997, was dismissed due to non-prosecution as the applicant failed to join via video conference and there was no interim direction. Liberty was reserved to revive the matter if a cause of action survives.
What did the court decide?
Liberty granted to file application for revival of the matter if any cause of action survives.
What the court decided
O.J.C. No.8296 of 1997
10. 9.10.2020
This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.
Nobody is joining on behalf of the petitioner through Video Conferencing at the time of call. This matter is pending since 1997. There is no interim direction involving the case. It is not known whether cause of action still survives or not.
Mrs. P. Rath, learned counsel submits on behalf of the opposite party no.3 that Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Sr. Advocate as well as Mr. G. Rath, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.3 have died in the meantime and the brief is not in her custody right now. There is no further appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.3 as yet. Registry is directed not to show names of the counsel for the opposite party no.3 any further.
Be that as it may, this Writ Petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution however, with liberty to the petitioner that in the event any cause of action still survives, he may file appropriate application for revival of the matter.
.…..….………………… (Biswanath Rath, J.)
Ayas
2
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
Opposite Party No. 3
Coram
Biswanath Rath
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court