Gauhati High Court
IA(C)/211/2025 of Nyamar Karbak Vs Pesi Jilen on 17 May 2026
GAHC040014302025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/211/2025 Nyamar Karbak Age: 48 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Tumnya Karbak resident of Dego Kamki PO and PS Kamba West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC040014302025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : IA(C)/211/2025
Nyamar Karbak
Age: 48 Occupation :
Address:Son of Late Tumnya Karbak
resident of Dego Kamki
PO and PS Kamba West Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
Pesi Jilen
Age: 0Occupation :
Address:Son of Late Gepe Jilen
resident of Ese Kerte
PO and PS Liromoba
West Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh.
------------
Advocate for : Jumge Karbak
Advocate for : Romjir Rakshap appearing for Pesi Jilen: Advocate appearing for respectively.
Linked Case : Election Pet./6/2024
Nyamar Karbak
Address:Son of Late Tumnya Karbak
resident of Dego Kamki village
PO and PS Kamba
West Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh
VERSUS
Page No.# 2/2
Pesi Jilen
Age: 0 Occupation :
Address:Son of Late Gepe Jilen
resident of Ese Kerte Village
PO and PS Liromoba
West Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh
------------
Advocate for : Marto Kato
Advocate for : Romjir Rakshap appearing for Pesi Jilen: Advocate appearing for respectively.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 18.05.2026
Heard Mr. Romjir Rakshap, learned counsel for the applicant/ returned candidate. Also heard Mr. Marto Kato, learned counsel for the Opposite Party/ election petitioner.
It is submitted at the Bar that by the lapse of time, this interlocutory application has become infructuous.
In view of the above, the instant interlocutory application stands disposed of as having become infructuous.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant