Dismissed

Shakeena Devi v. Mostt. Kamlawati Devi and Anr.

Patna HC16 Sept 2013CWJC/3053/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order allowing specific documents as exhibits in a pending miscellaneous case was dismissed. The High Court held that the lower court’s exercise of discretion did not warrant interference, though it directed disposal within three months.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed; the lower court is directed to conclude the case within three months.

Shakeena Devi Vs Mostt. Kamlawati Devi and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3053 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== 1. Shakeena Devi W/O Late Kashi Singh Resident Of Village- Sakri, P.SSakri, District- Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Mostt. Kamlawati Devi alleged to be the W/O Late Kashi Singh Resident of Village- Giridhar Basraun, P.S- Nawanagar, District- Buxar. 2. Geeta Kumari D/O Late Kashi Singh Resident of Village + P.S- Sakri, District- Madhubani. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Murari Narain Chaudhary Mr. Vijay Kumar Mr. Mohit Srivastava For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Naresh Kr. Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶3

6 16-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶4

counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶5

The petitioner, in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is aggrieved by an order dated 14.10.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Madhubani in Misc. Case No. 40 of 1999 whereby the court below has allowed the respondent No.1, who is the petitioner in Misc. Case No. 40 of 1999, to mark Voter Identity Card along with Red Card and Admit Card of one Shambhu Nath Singh, issued from Bihar School Examination Board, Patna as exhibits.

¶6

From the impugned order it appears that the court

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.3053 of 2013 (6) dt.16-09-2013

¶8

2/2

¶9

below, after due application of mind, came to a conclusion that certain documents were relevant and highly essential for just decision of the case and, therefore, allowed the petitioner to exhibit such documents. The court below refused to admit other documents as evidence which it found unnecessary and which could have caused prejudice to this petitioner. Such exercise of discretion, after due application of mind by the court below, does not require interference by this court in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that disposal of the Misc. Case is being delayed on the one pretext or the other by the respondents which is causing much prejudice to the present petitioner.

¶11

From the impugned order it appears that the said Misc. Case No. 40/1999 is at the stage of argument. I expect that the court below shall make necessary endeavour to conclude the case as early as possible, preferably, within three months from the date of production/ communication of a copy of this order.

¶12

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶13

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶14

BKS/-

Shakeena Devi v. Mostt. Kamlawati Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakeena Devi v. Mostt. Kamlawati Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachidanand Panday Vs Sheo Shankar Pandey and Anr.

Rakhi Sinha @ Rakhi and Anr. Vs Kamal Kishore Sinha @ Kamal Ki

Nishit Kumar Singh @ Nishant K Vs Ramanand Prasad Gupta and Ors.

Deochandra Sah @ Jaichandra Sah Vs Srimati Manju Lata Mishra

Sheo Mangal Singh @ Sheo Manga Vs Munia Devi and Ors.

Mahadeo Mahto and Ors. Vs Sunita Devi and Ors.