This judge dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution. The court accepted the petitioner's counsel's statement that they received no instructions regarding the matter despite the long delay.
The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to apply for revival if they later receive instructions.
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.
WPMS No. 431 of 2006
Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
Mr. P.C. Maulikhi, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
By the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 30th April, 2006, passed by the District Judge, Nainital in Rent Control Revision No. 3 of 2006.
At this stage, Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since long his client has not contacted him and, hence, he has no instruction.
Based on the aforesaid statement, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution with liberty to the petitioner if he receives instruction, it would be open for him to file application for revival of the writ petition before this Court.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 17.07.2017
Shiv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution based on the petitioner's counsel's statement that they had no instructions.
Petitioner
State
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3
Sharad Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
