Single judge dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of a review application. The review sought scrutiny of an order refusing application for appointment of a Pleader Commissioner in a civil suit regarding removal of encroachment. Court found no error apparent on face of record.
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 Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15671 of 2014
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subroteswar De, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 27-10-2016
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15671 of 2014 dt.27-10-2016
2
By the impugned order, the learned court below has rejected the review petition filed by the petitioners for review of the order dated 12.03.2014 by which the order was passed directing appointment of the Pleader Commissioner for making a report on the point fixed by the court.
After considering the submissions and from perusal of the materials on record including the impugned order, it is evident that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent for removal of encroachment. During the pendency of the suit, the prayer was made on behalf of the plaintiff for appointment of the Pleader Commissioner for taking measurement and making local inspection. The said prayer was allowed after hearing the parties. Thereafter, the petition for review was filed by the defendant-petitioners which has been turned down by the impugned order holding that there was no error apparent on the face of record justifying the prayer for review.
After considering the reasons assigned by the learned court below, this Court does not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in refusing the prayer made by the petitioners.
The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Devendra/-
(V. Nath, J)
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the refusal to allow review of the order rejecting the prayer for appointment of a Pleader Commissioner warrants interference under Article 226.
Whether any illegality has been committed by the court below in turning down the review petition of the defendants.
Sabiha Parween and others
Jayant Kumar and others
V. Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
