Dismissed

Ram Jatan Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC26 Feb 2016MJC/2311/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court heard an application for condonation of delay in filing a restoration petition. The court condoned the 20-day delay but, noting the petitioners' long history of negligence in pursuing multiple prior review and restoration applications, dismissed the request to restore the underlying miscellaneous civil judgment.

What did the court decide?

Condoned 20-day delay in filing I.A.880 but dismissed the prayer for restoration of MJC No.861 of 2005.

Ram Jatan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Bihar and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2311 of 2006

¶3

====================================================== 1. Ram Jatan Singh 2. Bhagirathi Singh 3. Kusnath Singh

¶4

Sons of Late Sukhraj Singh, all resident of village Karahagar, P.S. Karahagar, District Rohtas .... .... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Bihar 2. The Member Board of Revenue 3. The Collector of Rohtas at Sasaram 4. Deputy Land Reforms Collector, Sasaram 5. Gauri Shankar Singh, son of Govind Dayal Singh 6. Narmadeshwar Singh, son of Late Sukharaj Singh, respondents no. 5 and 6 are resident of village Karhagar, P.S. Karahagar, District Rohtas .... .... Opp. Parties

¶7

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

¶8

and

¶9

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶10

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA)

¶11

10 26-02-2016 By order dated 26.4.2007 it was directed that the question of limitation shall be considered at the time of admission of the application. However, when the matter was admitted for hearing on 19.9.2007 the application for condonation of delay was not taken up. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that the delay is of 20 days.

¶12

I.A.880 of 2007 has been filed for condonation of delay of

¶13

20 days in filing the restoration application.

¶14

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the

¶15

delay in filing the restoration application.

¶16

Patna High Court MJC No.2311 of 2006 (10) dt.26-02-2016

¶17

¶18

I.A.No. 880 of 2007 is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appears for the State or for the opposite party Nos. 5 and 6.

¶20

The restoration application has been filed for restoration of MJC No. 861 of 2005 which was dismissed as not pressed on 7.8.2006 as no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioners to press the said application. The said MJC No. 861 of 2005 itself had been filed for restoration of Civil Review No. 61 of 1992 which was dismissed for default on 1.2.2001 for non-compliance of the order dated 11.1.2001 passed by this Court. In the said civil review application this Court by order dated 11.1.2001, after noting that nobody appeared, had granted three weeks’ time to take steps for substituted service as pointed out by the office failing which the application was to stand rejected without reference to a Bench.

¶21

The civil review application itself was filed for review of the order dated 9.8.1990 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 6452 of 1989. In the said order dated 9.8.1990 this Court noted that the matter was heard by the Bench yesterday also but learned counsel for the respondents was not present in Court and, therefore, the matter was postponed for the next date but even on that day the said counsel was not present in Court nor any counter affidavit had

¶22

Patna High Court MJC No.2311 of 2006 (10) dt.26-02-2016

¶23

¶24

been filed on behalf of the contesting respondents. The petitioner was one of the contesting respondents in the writ petition.

¶25

It is evident from the above conspectus of facts that the petitioners had been all through negligent in pursuing the matter and at this belated stage they seek restoration of another restoration application.

¶26

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not consider it a fit case for restoring MJC No. 861 of 2005.

¶27

The restoration application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶28

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)

¶29

(Sudhir Singh, J) spal/-

¶30

Ram Jatan Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Jatan Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.

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

Dhillon Freight Carrier Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Smt. Yamuna Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Smt. Yamuna Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shivam Int. Udyog Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kishna Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Balanand Pathak and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.