Where a civil revision petition is withdrawn by the petitioner without adjudication on merits, the court’s order of dismissal as withdrawn does not clarify, modify, or set new precedent in procedural or substantive law. Such orders do not affect the legal position regarding civil revision nor operate as binding or persuasive authority in future cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CO/2982/2024 of SAMPA GOSWAMI Vs SHIRSHENDU GOSWAMI |
| CNR | WBCHCA0410162024 |
| Date of Registration | 16-08-2024 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Court No.25 (Appellate Side) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding; no law declared or principle decided. |
| Persuasive For | Not a source of persuasive authority for any forum. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The petition was dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the petitioner’s counsel; no order on merits was passed or legal issue decided.
- No law has been laid down or clarified; the order does not affect existing legal interpretation.
- Lawyers cannot cite this order as precedent, whether for substantive or procedural points.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The order only records that, upon request by the petitioner’s counsel, permission to withdraw the petition was granted.
- The petition was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
- No legal questions were examined or principles discussed by the Court for the purposes of precedent or future guidance.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present petition.
Respondent
- No arguments by the opposite party are recorded in the order.
Factual Background
- The matter came up before the Calcutta High Court on the civil revisional side.
- The petitioner, through counsel, requested withdrawal of the petition.
- The Court allowed the request and dismissed the petition as withdrawn without entering into the merits.
Statutory Analysis
- No statutory provisions were analyzed or interpreted in the order.
- The order contains no discussion of legal principles, statutes, or constitutional provisions.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- There are no dissenting or concurring opinions in this judgment.
- The order was passed by a single judge (HON’BLE JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA).
Procedural Innovations
- No new procedural directions, innovations, or guidelines were issued in this case.
Alert Indicators
- None—no precedent was laid down, affirmed, or overturned.