Facts
The petitioners invoked Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a declaration that revenue-recovery proceedings against the subject property for alleged dues of respondent No. 4 were illegal.
Source reference: p. 7At the hearing, petitioners’ counsel submitted that the writ petition had been rendered infructuous.
Source reference: p. 7Issues
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as infructuous in view of the petitioners’ counsel’s submission.
Source reference: p. 7Law Applied
The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, with Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure also cited in the prayer.
Source reference: p. 7The Court did not determine any substantive rule concerning revenue recovery or the legality of proceedings against the subject property; it disposed of the petition on the petitioners’ submission that it had become infructuous.
Source reference: p. 7Reasoning
The Court recorded counsel’s submission that the petition had become infructuous and, on that basis, found no occasion to consider the underlying challenge to the revenue-recovery proceedings.
Source reference: p. 7It did not examine the merits of the petitioners’ claim.
Source reference: p. 7Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition as having been rendered infructuous.
No substantive determination was made on the legality of the revenue-recovery proceedings.
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
M/S PRITHVI AND CO., PVT LTD COMPANYvsTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
