Allowed

Vijay Kumar, v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC26 Feb 2020MJC/81/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows an application for the restoration of a dismissed Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case. The restoration is contingent upon the petitioner deleting the second prayer in the writ petition to avoid multiple court fees. The court permitted the deletion in the course of the day.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of Cr.W.J.C. No. 1396 of 2019 to the original file upon deletion of prayer no. (ii) in para 1.

Vijay Kumar, Vs The State of Bihar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.81 of 2020 In

¶2

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1396 of 2019

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Vijay Kumar, son of Krishnachandra Prasad Sinha, resident of Sri Vihar, Mohalla Gannipur, P.s. Kaji Muhammadpur, District Muzaffarpur.

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Home Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

¶9

The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

¶10

The Sub Divisional Office, East, Muzaffarpur.

¶11

... ... Opposite Parties

¶12

======================================================

¶13

Appearance :

¶14

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Suraj Samdarshi For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Prabhat Kumar Verma (Aag 3) ======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

3 26-02-2020 This application has been filed for restoration of Cr.W.J.C. No. 1396 of 2019, which was dismissed due to noncompliance of the peremptory order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the Court.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a bonafide manner the petitioner deposited additional court fee with respect to the second relief under the impression that the same would be treated to be removal of defect. However, it appears that the office has refused to accept the additional court fee for the purpose of second relief. It is further contended that if so allowed the petitioner would confine his prayer in the writ petition only with respect to Case No. M

¶19

Patna High Court MJC No.81 of 2020(3) dt.26-02-2020 2/2

¶20

1310 of 2019 and would delete the prayer made in the writ petition with respect to Case No. M 269 of 2019.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the State does not oppose the prayer for restoration of the writ petition in case the petitioner confines his prayer to only one relief in the writ petition.

¶22

In that view of the matter, this application is allowed and Cr.W.J.C. No. 1396 of 2019 is directed to be restored to its original file.

¶23

The petitioner is also permitted to delete prayer no. (ii) in para 1 of Cr.W.J.C. No. 1396 of 2019 in the course of the day.

¶24

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

¶25

Pradeep/-

¶26

Vijay Kumar, v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar, v. The State of Bihar

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

Baby Singh Vs The Patna Municipal Corporation Through Mr. Anupam Kumar Suman The Municipal Commissioner

Sasaram Bhabhua Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar

Anil Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Prof. Ram Nandan Prasad Sinha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rimjhjim Devi Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Sobhit Int Udyog Through Its Proprietor Ram Sobhit Prasad Vs The Union Of India and Ors.