Back
MANISH MATHUR
Chandrika Prasad Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Prasad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
[Manish Mathur, J.]
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite parties stand dispensed with.
2. Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 17.12.2022 whereby Civil Revision No.40 of 2022 has been dismissed in default of appearance. Further prayer challenging order dated 19.08.2019 passed in Regular Suit No.479 of 1998 has also been made.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that predecessor in interest of opposite parties had filed suit for cancellation of Will which was registered as Regular Suit No.479 of 1998 in which impugned order dated 19.08.2019 has been passed against which aforesaid revision was filed and has been dismissed in default of appearance.
4. In view of submissions advanced, it appears that against order impugned in present writ petition dated 19.08.2019 in Suit proceedings, Civil Revision No.40 of 2022 has already been filed and therefore there is no occasion for this Court at this stage to interfere in order dated 19.08.2019. So far as order dated 17.12.2022 passed in Civil Revision is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner seeks liberty to file
Revision petition closed as infructuous due to dismissal of underlying suit.
A petition may be withdrawn with permission if there is no objection from the opposing party and the applicant may pursue further recourse under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Failure to prosecute a case diligently can lead to dismissal of the petition.
A revision petition is not maintainable when an appeal is the appropriate legal remedy as outlined in the Civil Procedure Code.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
