Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16945 (GAU)

LONA DUTTA v. NILMONI NANDI AND 8 ORS

CRP(IO)/438/2025 · 2026-10-14

Mridul Kumar Kalita

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010079492025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/438/2025 LONA DUTTA D/O- LATE ROTESWAR DEY W/O- AMOL DUTTA R/O- CHITTA RANJAN PALLY MEHERPUR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM VERSUS NILMONI NANDI AND 8 ORS S/O- LATE NITAI NANDI R/O- VILL.- KALINAGAR PART-III P.O. KALINAGAR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788801. 2:GONESH NANDI S/O- LATE NITAI NANDI R/O- VILL.- KALINAGAR PART-III P.O. KALINAGAR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788801. 3:BASHUDEV NANDI S/O- LATE NITAI NANDI R/O- VILL.- KALINAGAR PART-III P.O. KALINAGAR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788801. Page No.# 2/3 4:KRISHNA NANDI S/O- LATE NITAI NANDI R/O- VILL.- KALINAGAR PART-III P.O. KALINAGAR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788801. 5:GOURANGA NANDI S/O- LATE NITAI NANDI R/O- VILL.- KALINAGAR PART-III P.O. KALINAGAR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788801. 6:CHITTA RANJAN DEY S/O LATE MADHAV CHANDRA DEY R/O- VILL.- KALINAGAR PART-III P.O. KALINAGAR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788801. 7:NIRANJAN DEY S/O LATE MADHAV CHANDRA DEY R/O- VILL.- KALINAGAR PART-III P.O. KALINAGAR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788801. 8:NIRMAL CHANDRA DEY D/O LATE MADHAV CHANDRA DEY R/O- VILL.- KALINAGAR PART-III P.O. KALINAGAR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788801. 9:LAKSHMI BALA DEY D/O LATE MADHAV CHANDRA DEY R/O- VILL.- KALINAGAR PART-III P.O. KALINAGAR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788801. ------------ Advocate for : MS. R CHOUDHURY Page No.# 3/3 Advocate for : MR. D CHAKRABARTY (R-1 TO 5) appearing for NILMONI NANDI AND 8 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 15.10.2026 1. Heard Mr. A. H. M. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Mr. D. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this CRP(I/O) has become infructuous and therefore, the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw this CRP(I/O). 2. The prayer is not opposed to by the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Hence, the same is allowed. 4. This CRP(I/O) is dismissed on withdrawal. JUDGE Comparing Assistant