Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
this application stands dismissed as
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. Permeshwar Gorain 2. Smt. Basanti Devi 3. Smt. Sakari Devi @ Sabitry Devi 4. Seolal Sao 5. Smt. Laxmi Devi 6. Most. Pravawati Devi 7. Mahesh Pandey …. …. …. Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN. For the Petitioner: Mr. Sameer Saurabh…
Judgment
#1. Permeshwar Gorain 2. Smt. Basanti Devi 3. Smt. Sakari Devi @ Sabitry Devi 4. Seolal Sao 5. Smt. Laxmi Devi 6. Most. Pravawati Devi 7. Mahesh Pandey …. …. …. Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN. For the Petitioner: Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate For the Respondents: ------ 08/02.08.2023 Counsel for the petitioner submits that Title Suit No. 176 of 2006 has already been disposed of. Thus, this W.P(C) which is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution, arising out of an interlocutory order passed in the Title Suit No. 176 of 2006 is rendered infructuous. Considering his submission, this application stands dismissed as infructuous. anjali/ (ANANDA SEN , J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: this application stands dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.