Petitioner sought review of a judgment dismissing his writ petition for possession of a shop due to significant delay and laches. The Court held that mere absence of counsel did not constitute a valid ground for review.
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 Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3995 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5803 of 2015
======================================================
Prashant Kumar S/o Bhrigu Ashram Prasad R/o Mohalla- Anandpuri, P.S.Shri Kishnapuri, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner Versus
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr.Bishnu Kant Dubey, Advocate For the Opposite Parties :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-05-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Patna High Court MJC No.3995 of 2018 dt.15-05-2019 2/3
however was not made. The writ petition was dismissed in view of the considerable delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court after delay of almost two decades in respect of a claim for possession of shop allotted to him as far back as in the year 1997. It is submitted that had the learned counsel for the petitioner been heard, he would have placed the matter properly on its merit and attempted to demonstrate that the claim of the petitioner was not stale one and that there were no delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.
“There is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by "error apparent". A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.”
(1980) 2 SCC 167 , it was explained as follows :
“Whatever be the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.”
Patna High Court MJC No.3995 of 2018 dt.15-05-2019 3/3
“The parameters are prescribed in Order XLVII of the CPC and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing "on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason". The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the Court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict.”
(Vikash Jain, J)
BT/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N.A. |
| Uploading Date | 18.05.2019 |
| Transmission Date | N.A. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere to set aside or modify a judgment dismissing a writ petition on grounds of delay and laches merely because the petitioner's original counsel was absent and the nex
Whether a disparity in the performance of the original counsel without prejudice to the due hearing of the party to the Court justifies review of the impugned order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs The Government of Andhra PradeshExplained¶25
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372 · Who else cites this
Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of DelhiExplained¶27
Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1980) 2 SCC 167 · Who else cites this
Haridas Das vs Smt. Usha Rani BanikExplained¶30
Haridas Das vs Smt. Usha Rani Banik, (2006) 4 SCC 78 · Who else cites this
Prashant Kumar
The State Of Bihar
The Bihar State Agricultural Produce Marketing Board
The Administrator, Bihar State Agriculture Produce Marketing Board
The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, P.S.- Sultanganj
The Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Musallahpur
Vikash Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
