High Court set aside a trial court order deciding a review petition after the petitioner sought withdrawal, holding the decision was without jurisdiction.
Impugned order of the trial court is set aside and civil revision petition is allowed.
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.1959 of 2009
======================================================
1.DEENA NATH SETH.
2.RAMADHAR SETH
BOTH SONS OF SRI RAGHUNANDAN SETH.
3.SURJA DEVI @ SARITA DEVI @ SAROJ DEVI W/O DEENA NATH SETH.
4.KAUSHILYA DEVI, W/O RAMADHAR SETH. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHABUA, WARD NO. 8(new) P.S. BHABUA, DISTRICT KAIMUR AT BHABUA.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.MD. NASIM RAYEEM @ MD. NASIM RAINE SON OF LATE ABDUL RAHIM RAYEEN, R/O WARD NO. 4,(OLD) 14(NEW) POLICE STATION BHABUA, DISTRICT KAIMUR(BHABUA)
…….opposite party/plaintiff/opponent 1st set.
2.(A) SANTOSH JAISWAL
(B) RAVI KUMAR JAISWAL
5.PRADEEP PRASAD SON OF SARJU PRASAD.
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF BHABUA WARD NO. 4(OLD)7 (NEW) POLICE STATION BHABUA, DISTRICT KAIMUR, BHABUA.
... Opponent 2nd Set…. Opposite Party/Defendant 2nd Set. ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Waliur Rahman, Adv & Mr. Ranjeet Choubey, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar Tiwari, Adv, Md. Abu Shajar, Adv & Mr. Abu Haidar, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-10-2019
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Patna High Court C.R. No.1959 of 2009 dt.17-10-2019 2/3
interest over the suit land and also for declaration that the disputed wall between the plaintiffs and defendants and part of which was damaged by the defendants be restored at the expense of defendants and further to grant damage of Rs. 1,000/-. The operative part of the order reads as follows:-
"That suit be & same is decreed partly on contest with cost with the direction that defendant shall construct & restore the suit wall in its original status at this own cost in the presence of Court Officer & plaintiff both. At present there is no finding on point title with respect to suit wall."
Patna High Court C.R. No.1959 of 2009 dt.17-10-2019 3/3
petitioner to withdraw his review petition or if the learned court below refused permission to withdraw review petition it ought to have given sufficient reasons for not allowing the defendantpetitioner to withdraw the review petition. However, the court below heard and passed order on review petition beyond the ambit and scope of review jurisdiction against which present revision petition has been filed. Once the prayer to withdraw the review petition was made by the defendant-petitioner, the court had no option but to pass order of withdrawal of the review petition, as such the order as impugned was without jurisdiction and is accordingly, set aside.
The civil revision petition is allowed.
(S. Kumar, J)
ranjan/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 15.12.2019 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction in hearing and deciding a review petition after the petitioner sought to withdraw it?
Deena Nath Seth or Ramadhar Seth or Surja Devi or Kaushilya Devi
Md. Nasim Rayeem
S. Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
