Sukdeb Seth & Anr. v. Ajit Dhara & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
Mr. Ashis Kumar Dutta …. for the petitioners. Mr. Ashis Kumar Dutta, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner is present. There is no representation on behalf of the opposite party. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner be kept with the record. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that being a tenant he filed this instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 27.11.2011 passed by the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the suit pending before the Trial Court has already been decreed and the landlord/plaintiff got the possession in respect of the tenanted premises. So, there is no justification to keep this revisional application alive as it becomes infructuous. 2 Accordingly, the revisional application being C.O. 1761 of 2013 is hereby dismissed as non-prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. There will be no order as to costs. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.) 3 4
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.