Civil Revision No.158 of 2012 dealt with condonation of 14-day delay in filing the revision and the Court permitted withdrawal to appeal against the quantification of mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12(2) CPC.
Delay condoned; permission allowed to withdraw civil revision to prefer an appeal; matter disposed with liberty.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.158 of 2012
====================================================== 1. Baldeo Thakur, son of late Shyam Thakur. 2. Lal Babu Thakur, son of Baldeo Thakur. Both are residents of –Janipur, P.S.- Nanpur, DistrictSitamarhi. .... Applicant…Decree-holder .... Petitioner/s Versus
Sitamarhi.
...Opp. Parties…Judgment debtors .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prasoon Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER
5 21-01-2013 Heard Mr. Prasoon Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
Re: I.A. No.5812 of 2012 :
This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 14 days which has occurred in filing the civil revision application.
Considering the explanation given in the interlocutory application for the delay caused in filing the civil revision application, the delay is condoned.
I.A. No.5812 of 2012 is accordingly disposed of.
Re: C.R. No.158 of 2012 :
This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 8.5.2012 passed in Misc. Case No.7 of 2008, whereby the learned Munsif, Pupari at Sitamarhi has been pleased to quantify the mesne profits granted to the petitioners under the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.88 of 1989 at Rs.2,000/-. The petitioners have questioned the
Patna High Court C.R. No.158 of 2012 (5) dt.21-01-2013
2
quantification as being unreasonable.
In view of the provisions of Order 20, rule 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) rendering the order under challenge appealable Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application to enable the petitioners to take recourse to such remedy as is available to them under the Code.
Permission is allowed.
This application is disposed of with the liberty aforesaid.
It goes without saying that any such appeal being preferred by the petitioners questioning the order impugned before this Court together with an application praying for condonation of delay shall be considered and disposed of by the court concerned taking into consideration the pendency of the matter before this Court.
(Jyoti Saran, J)
SKPathak/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 14 days in filing the civil revision application should be condoned.
Whether permission to withdraw the revision application to prefer an alternative appeal remedy should be granted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baldeo Thakur
Lal Babu Thakur
Anand Sah
Shri Chandra Sah
Dinesh Sah
Jyoti Saran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
