Additional District Sub-Registry Office,Collector Ate Bldg. v. Radha Gobind Jew Thakur Rept. By Badal Karak & ORS

10.

03.01.

2024.

Ct. 655 s.g.

C.O. 797 of 2013 CAN 1 of 2014 (Old CAN7314 of 2014) CAN 2 of 2014 (Old CAN 7315 of 2014) CAN 3 of 2022 Additional District Sub-Registry Office, Collectorate bld.

Vs.

Radha Gobinda Jew Thakur Rept. By Badal Karak & Ors.

Petitioner is not represented.

There is no representation on behalf of the opposite parties.

It appears that the instant applications are filed with a prayer for restoration of the civil revisional application to its original file and number which was dismissed for default on 26th March, 2014 after condoning the delay.

It appears from the order dated 26th March, 2014 that on that date petitioner was not present at the time of calling and as such the revisional application was dismissed for default by passing an order of this Court. Against the said order of dismissal the applications are filed with a prayer to restore the civil revisional application to its original file and number after condoning the delay.

Today petitioner is not represented and it appears that they have lost interest to proceed with the present applications. So the revisional applications being CAN 1

of 2014 (Old CAN7314 of 2014) and CAN 2 of 2014 (Old CAN 7315 of 2014) are hereby dismissed for default. Consequently the application being No. CAN 3 of 2022 is also dismissed for default.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

There will be no order as to costs.

( Prasenjit Biswas, J.)