Patna High Court rejected a review application challenging an order dismissing a Writ application under Article 226. The Court held there were no grounds to review based on the precedent cited.
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.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.24 of 2012 (5) dt.01-03-2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.24 of 2012 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20284 of 2011 ====================================================== Gulam Rasul .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Mahabir Sah & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amir Alam For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 5 01-03-2013 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Binod Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
This review application has been filed for review of the order dated 22.11.2011 passed in CWJC No.20284 of 2011 dismissing the same.
It appears that the present petitioner filed injunction application before the trial court. The said application was rejected. The petitioner filed Miscellaneous Appeal before the Appellate Court. The same was also dismissed confirming the trial court order and thereafter, the writ application was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This court considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jai Singh & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 385 held that the High Court is not vested with any
Patna High Court C. REV. No.24 of 2012 (5) dt.01-03-2013 2
unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Courts or Tribunal.
The submission of the learned counsel that he had already filed an application for appointment of Pleader Commissioner as far back as in the year 2003 for bringing on record as to whether there is house or tree on the suit property but the same was not considered. This is a question of fact and for that purpose, none of the provision under Order 47 Rule 1 is applicable.
Thus, I find no ground to review the order.
Accordingly, this review application is rejected.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)
Saurabh/-
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jai Singh & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of DelhiReferred¶4
(2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 385
Gulam Rasul
Mahabir Sah & Ors.
Mungeshwar Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Mungeshwar Sahoo
Parties & counsel
