Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The court heard the matter and perused a report and a statement in support of that report, both recorded on 17.05.2016. The material before the court indicates that the parties had a relationship with consent and that there was a promise to marry. The statement further alleges that the promise to marry was subsequently not kept, with a reason given that identified the complainant's caste. The applicant sought relief in the court's extra ordinary jurisdiction. The opinion concerns whether to entertain that grievance in extra ordinary jurisdiction.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should intervene under its extra ordinary jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's grievance.
2. Whether the facts disclosed in the report and statement (a consensual relationship and an unfulfilled promise to marry allegedly abandoned for reasons of caste) constitute a prima facie situation warranting intervention in extra ordinary jurisdiction.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis, as reflected in the short opinion, proceeded in the following steps strictly based on the material before it:

• The court took oral hearing ("Heard") and examined ("Perused") the report and the supporting statement dated 17.05.2016.
• On a reading of that material, the court noted factual points: the relationship between the parties was consensual; there was a promise to marry; later the promise was not honored, and the stated reason for breaking the promise was the complainant's caste.
• Despite recognizing this as a "prima facie situation," the court concluded that it was not appropriate to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction to entertain the grievance. The opinion states this conclusion succinctly: "In view of this prima facie situation, we are not inclined to intervene in extra ordinary jurisdiction."
• The court clarified the limited scope of its observations: they were made solely to justify the refusal to entertain the grievance in extra ordinary jurisdiction and did not amount to any adjudication on the merits—the court expressly stated it had "not recorded any finding either way on contentions."
• Finally, the court left procedural rights open to the applicant by permitting the applicant to raise the contentions before the trial court at an appropriate stage, and disposed of the matter with no costs.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court refused to entertain the applicant's grievance in extra ordinary jurisdiction and disposed of the matter with no costs.

Implications and direct effects:

• The court's refusal to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction is the operative decision of the opinion.
• The court made only limited, procedural observations for the purpose of declining jurisdiction and explicitly did not make any findings on the substantive contentions.
• The applicant retains the liberty to present the same contentions before the trial court at an appropriate juncture.
• No costs were awarded against any party.
• The opinion does not set out or discuss any broader legal precedent or rule; accordingly, no new precedent is established by the decision beyond the immediate procedural disposition.