In this civil revision, the Patna High Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal against a Sub-Judge's order refusing to revive a miscellaneous case. The court held that only an original petitioner could seek revival, not an opposite party.
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 Revision No.5 of 2014
======================================================
Rajesh Ram, Son of Late Raj Narayan Ram @ Raj Narayan Chamar, Resident of Village + P.O. Jiwpur, P.S. Jamania, District Gajipur (U.P.)
... ... Defendant/Opposite Party/Petitioner Versus
... ... Opposite Party 1st Set
… ...Opposite Parties 2nd Set
All residents of Jivpur, P.S. Jamunia, District Gajipur, U.P., Present Address at Alipur, P.O. Darwan, P.S. Ramgarh, District Kaimur.
… ...Opposite Parties 3rd Set
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Anshuman For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has filed this civil revision petition
against the order dated 12.04.2013, passed by the learned SubJudge-I, Kaimur in Misc. Case No.24 of 2012 by which the petition of the petitioner for reviving Misc. Case No.46 of 1998
Patna High Court C.R. No.5 of 2014(9) dt.28-11-2018 2/3
has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Probate Case No.43 of 1997 was filed and the letter of administration was issued but one Tulsi Kohar and others filed Misc. Case No.46 of 1998 for revocation of the letter of administration but on account of non-prosecution of Misc. Case No.46 of 1998 the same was dismissed on 15.01.2011. The petitioner was not one of the petitioners of Misc. Case No.46 of 1998 but the petitioner filed petition for reviving Misc. Case No.46 of 1998 and the learned Sub-Judge dismissed the petition of the petitioner for restoration of Misc. Case No.46 of 1998 on the ground that the miscellaneous case cannot be restored at the instance of such a person who was not petitioner in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was opposite party in the aforesaid case and his interest is directly involved in the case but I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Sub-Judge has rightly dismissed the miscellaneous case for restoration of Misc. Case No.46 of 1998 on the ground that petitioner was not one of the petitioners of Misc. Case No.46 of 1998. If the petitioner is at all aggrieved for issuance
Patna High Court C.R. No.5 of 2014(9) dt.28-11-2018 3/3
of letter of administration, the petitioner may file revocation of letter of administration in accordance with law, if maintainable.
Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed
as de void of merit.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
S.KUMAR/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a person who was not a petitioner in a previously dismissed revocation of letter of administration case is competent to file a petition for revival of that case.
Rajesh Ram
Garajan Chamar
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
