Dismissed

Krishna Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC17 May 2017C. REV./191/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review application under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the Division Bench dismissed the petition, finding no error apparent on the face of the record. The court agreed with the State that the petitioner should have challenged the original order via an appeal rather than seeking review.

What did the court decide?

The review application under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is dismissed as it has no merit.

Krishna Choudhary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Corruption | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civi ==================== Krishna Choudhary	l Review No.191 of 2016 ================================== .... .... Petitioner/s Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors ====================	.... .... Respondent/s ==================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner :	Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
For the State : ==================== CORAM: HONOURABL SINGH	Mr. Prabhat Kumar, AC to GA XI ================================== E MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR

¶3

and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

¶4

ORAL ORDER

¶5

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH)

¶6

4 17-05-2017

¶7

Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate No. XI.

¶8

This application, under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, has been filed for review of the order, dated 10^th July, 2014, passed in L.P.A. No. 1061 of 2013, whereby the Division Bench refused to exercise its discretionary power in favour of the appellant, who is alleged to have committed fraud and is being prosecuted for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶9

Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel,

¶10

Patna High Court C. REV. No.191 of 2016 (4) dt.17-05-2017

¶11

2/2

¶12

for the petitioner, submitted that on equity, the appeal of the petitioner ought to have been allowed by the Division Bench.

¶13

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submitted that after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and law involved in the case, the Court consciously refused to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner and if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order, he ought to have challenged the same by way of filing an appeal.

¶14

We find force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the State.

¶15

We see no merit in this application as no error, apparent on the face of record, could be pointed out by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, warranting review of the order, dated 10^th July, 2014.

¶16

Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

¶17

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)

¶18

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)

¶19

Prabhakar Anand/-

¶20

U √ T X

Krishna Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Choudhary 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harishankar Prasad Singh Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Sudha Devi and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Kameshwar Tiwary and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Kalam Anwar and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Indra Nand Thakur and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Saifullah Khalid and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.