Dismissed

Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC21 Aug 2017MJC/2963/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order dismissed a miscellaneous application seeking restoration of an interlocutory application that had been dismissed for want of prosecution. The Court held the application non-maintainable as the underlying limitation petition was already dismissed for delay, but granted liberty to challenge the dismissal order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to challenge the order dismissing the Limitation Appeal via review, recall, or fresh application for condonation of delay.

Manoj Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2963 of 2016

¶2

¶3

LPA 1527 of 2014

¶4

====================================================== Manoj Kumar, Son of Ramdeo Sah, resident of Village- Telkap, P.O.Amjhour, P.S.- Rohtas, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶10

.... .... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance :

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ Manu, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.

¶13

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY

¶14

ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶15

4 21-08-2017 This application has been filed for restoration of Interlocutory Application No.8625 of 2014 which was dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶16

On 25.11.2014, LPA No.1527 of 2014 was listed for orders. In the said LPA, I.A. No.8625 of 2014 was filed seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. As none had appeared when the matter was taken up, I.A. No.8625 of 2014 was dismissed for want of prosecution and consequently holding that the delay in filing the appeal could not be condoned, the LPA itself has been dismissed. Once the LPA has been

¶17

Patna High Court MJC No.2963 of 2016 (4) dt.21-08-2017

¶18

2/2

¶19

dismissed on account of the delay after I.A. No.8625 of 2014 was dismissed, this application only for restoration of I.A. No.8625 of 2014 is not maintainable as the LPA itself has been

¶20

dismissed on account of delay.

¶21

That being so, this application being not maintainable for restoration of I.A. No.8625 of 2014, the same is dismissed. However, liberty shall be available to the petitioner for challenging the order seeking restoration of LPA No.1527 of 2014 or review or recall of the order dated 25.11.2014 and thereafter seek condonation of delay.

¶22

(Rajendra Menon, CJ)

¶23

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)

¶24

Sunil/-

¶25

Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. The 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

Nishu Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Brajesh Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar

Mirtunjay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Gautam Kumar Kejriwal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dayal Sharan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dilip Sao Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.