In a civil writ petition challenging an order of non-prosecution of a Batai case, the High Court of Patna dismissed the petition for want of prosecution as the petitioners did not appear to present their case on the hearing date.
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.8946 of 2007
====================================================== 1. Musai Yadav, son of late Mohan Yadav 2. Subidha Devi, wife of late Nakul Yadav 3. Chamaru Yadav, son of late Ghotai Yadav 4. Kaleshwar Yadav, son of late Ghotai Yadav All resident of village-Marangi, P.S.-Mansahi, District-Katihar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Deputy Collector Land Reforms Katihar, P.S. & District-Katihar. 3. Bashishtha Narayan Yadav, son of late Yamuna Prasad Yadav. 4. Nitya Nand Yadav, son of Narayan Yadav Both are resident of village-Marangi, P.S.-Mansahi, District-Katihar. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent nos.1&2 : Mr. P.K.Verma, AAG-3 Ms.Divya Verma, AC to AAG-3 For the Respondent nos.3&4 : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Jha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER
3 26-07-2016 The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2006 passed in Batai Case No.336 of 2006-07 by the respondent D.C.L.R., Katihar, whereby the aforesaid Batai Case filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 48-E of the B.T. Act has been dismissed on account of non-prosecution.
Even today, when the matter has been called out, none appears on behalf of the petitioners to press this application. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4, on the other hand, submit that the petitioners are in habit of filing frivolous case and thereafter they
Patna High Court CWJC No.8946 of 2007 (3) dt.26-07-2016
2
do not prosecute that litigation; therefore, it was rightly rejected by the D.C.L.R., Katihar.
Be that as it may, since none is appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the writ petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
Arvind/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow or dismiss the writ petition when the petitioners failed to appear without press-ing the application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Musai Yadav And Others
State of Bihar
Deputy Collector Land Reforms Katihar
Bashishtha Narayan Yadav And Another
Birendra Prasad Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
