Court dismissed a review petition filed challenging an order dated 02.05.2016 regarding a writ case concerning civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8189 of 2013, stating no cogent reason exists for review despite witness count discrepancy. Lower court directed to comply with the earlier order.
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 Review No.336 of 2016 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8189 of 2013
====================================================== NIRMALA SINHA @ NIRMALA DEVI WIFE OF LATE VIJAY KUMAR SINHA RESIDENT OF BHEKH CHAND DAS LANE, MURARPUR, POLICE STATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT GAYA.
.... .... PETITIONER/S
VERSUS
====================================================== Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER
4 09-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent.
Petitioner of CWJC no.8189/2013 which was disposed of on 02.05.2016 has filed instant review petition on the ground that at an earlier occasion as the correct factual aspect has not been placed before the court, therefore, it has been incorporated in the order that seven witnesses have already been examined whereupon the order passed by the lower court was kept immuned but the fact remains, only three witnesses has been examined till today and on account thereof, the instant review petition be allowed.
The order dated 02.05.2016 might have been complied with in the background of the fact that the learned lower court was directed to conclude the trial within one month. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the present
Patna High Court C. REV. No.336 of 2016 (4) dt.09-11-2016
2
moment has submitted that court was vacant which has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent stating that Presiding Officer is present.
Be that as it may, I do not see any cogent reason of review the order dated 02.05.2016 passed in CWJC No.8189 of 2013, consequent thereupon instant petition is rejected. However, the learned lower court is directed to be sincere in complying the order dated 02.05.2016.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)
Prakash Narayan U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition allowing the hearing of seven witnesses should be allowed given that only three were examined.
Whether the order dated 02.05.2016 requiring conclusion of trial within one month needs review.
Nirmala Sinha @ Nirmala Devi
Mridula Devi @ Manju
Anju Devi
Kamini Devi
Aditya Kumar Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
