In a first appeal, the High Court of Patna dismissed the matter as time-barred after the limitation petition had previously been dismissed and no appellant appeared. A single judge rendered an oral order.
The first appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was time-barred after the dismissal of the limitation petition.
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 First Appeal No.139 of 2008
======================================================
Bashishtha Narayan Singh, son of late Raj Bahadur Singh, resident of village Gorasara, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District Kaimur at Bhabua
.... .... Appellant
Versus
.... .... Respondent 1st Set
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER
10 17-04-2017 No one appears on behalf of the appellant.
In view of peremptory order dated 30.01.2017, the limitation petition has stood dismissed.
Since this appeal is reported to be time barred and the limitation petition has already been dismissed, this appeal stands dismissed being time barred.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)
SHAHZAD/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the first appeal lies time-barred due to dismissal of the limitation petition.
Bashishtha Narayan Singh
State Bank of India
Hiraman Singh
Mithilesh Singh
Hemant Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
