High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a review petition filed over 10 years later, rejecting the argument that the original writ judgment was flawed for not recording the respondent's submissions, as the order noted the counter-affidavit.
Review petition dismissed with no merit found in the prayer.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 103 of 2005
Versus
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Sr.Advocate Mr. S. Bhowmick, Advocate For the Respondents :
-----
11/05.12.2014 Seeking review of order dated 04.07.1996 in C.W.J.C. No. 317 of 1986(R), the present review petition has been filed on 21.09.2005.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is unable to canvass the reason for entertaining the present review petition, after about 10 years. The learned Senior Counsel submits that it appears from the impugned order dated 04.07.1996 that the counsel for the respondents was not heard because in the impugned order the submission of the counsel for the respondents is not recorded.
3. I am unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the applicants/respondents in the writ petition. The order dated 04.07.1996 takes note of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. Taking note of the decision in “Nitya Nand Sharma & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.” , reported in (1996) 3 SCC 576 and the facts of the case, the writ petition was allowed.
4. I find no merit in the review petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
Manish/ N.A.F.R.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition filed after about 10 years should be entertained on the grounds that the respondents' counsel was not heard.
Whether the impugned order took note of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nitya Nand Sharma & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.Referred¶17
Nitya Nand Sharma & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 576 · Who else cites this
LANGATU LOHARA
SAMPAT LOHARA
SHEIKH @ MOHAMMED QUASIM
SHEIKH AJMADDUDDIN
SHEIKH AJAB ALI
COMMISSIONER, SOUTH CHHOTANAGPUR DIVISION, RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
