Allowed

Ajit Ranjan v. Kumari Archana @ Rinu and Anr.

Patna HC1 Jul 2013MJC/2637/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed a miscellaneous jurisdiction case filed for restoration of MJC No.1880 of 2013, which had been dismissed for default. The court restored the case conditionally, directing compliance of the original peremptory order within one week.

What did the court decide?

MJC No.2637 of 2013 allowed and MJC No.1880 of 2013 restored to original file and number, subject to compliance within one week.

Ajit Ranjan Vs Kumari Archana @ Rinu and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2637 of 2013

¶3

¶4

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1880 of 2013 In

¶5

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 239 of 2012

¶6

====================================================== Ajit Ranjan son of Ram Prasad Singh, resident of village Rebasi, P.S. Righa, District Sitamarhi.

¶7

.... .... Petitioner Versus

¶8

Kumari Archana @ Rinu daughter of Mohan Mishra wife of Ajit Ranjan

¶9

Rishu Raj under guardianship of his mother Kumari Archana @ Rinu. Both residents of village Babu Barahi, P.S. Babu Barhi, DistrictMadhubani.

¶10

.... .... Opposite Parties

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate

¶12

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN

¶13

and

¶14

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN)

¶17

3 01-07-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

This petition has been filed by the petitioner for

¶19

restoration of MJC No.1880 of 2013 which was dismissed for default due to non-compliance of peremptory order dated 01.04.2013 by which two weeks time was granted for removing the defects, namely, filing second copy of the petition in MJC No.1880 of 2013.

¶20

Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the statements in the petition it

¶21

Patna High Court MJC No.2637 of 2013 (3) dt.01-07-2013

¶22

¶23

appears that genuine reasons have been shown which prevented the petitioner from complying the said order correctly within the aforesaid time.

¶24

In the said circumstances, this MJC No.2637 of 2013 is allowed and MJC No.1880 of 2013 is restored to its original file and number. However, this would be subject to compliance of the said order dated 01.04.2013 within one week from today.

¶25

(S.N. Hussain, J)

¶26

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶27

Sunil/-

Ajit Ranjan v. Kumari Archana @ Rinu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Ranjan v. Kumari Archana @ Rinu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar Singh Vs Nikeshwar Singh and Ors.

Uma Shanker Keshri Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Smt. Sanju Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md.Naseem Alam Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Uma Nath Tiwary Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.Geeta Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.