This interlocutory application sought condonation of delay in filing a Civil Review petition. The High Court dismissed the application for insufficient cause shown for the delay and held the review application misconceived, resting on facts and circumstances already considered by the trial court.
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 REVIEW No.208 of 2018
Arising out of SECOND APPEAL No.455 of 2010 Along with
Interlocutory Application No.4991 of 2018
======================================================
Mahendra Prasad Singh, son of late Gangeshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Ward No. 2, P.S. Supaul, District Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate Mr. Natraj Verma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 23-01-2020
Re.: Interlocutory Application No.4991 of 2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
filed seeking condonation of delay of one year four months sixteen days in filing of Civil Review No. 208 of 2018.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.208 of 2018 dt.23-01-2020 2/4
The same reads as under:
“3. That the counsel for the Petitioner could not inform the Petitioner as the Petitioner could not be contacted on phone and thereafter he forgot about the matter but only on 18.06.2018 when the Petitioner came to the Petitioner’s counsel to file another case i.e. Civil Revision No.85 of 2018 then counsel for the Petitioner informed him about the dismissal of the case upon his enquiry then he returned Supaul and after arranging fund, came to Patna on 7.7.2018 and accordingly the Review petition has been drafted and is being filed on 9.7.2018.”
Patna High Court C. REV. No.208 of 2018 dt.23-01-2020 3/4
deceased sole respondent, the same was not proper as the Courts have held that on technicalities such petition for condonation should not be rejected, rather, the Court should compensate the opposite party, and to the extent possible, the approach should be to decide the matter on merits.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.208 of 2018 dt.23-01-2020 4/4
in the matter, the Court finds that sufficient cause has also not been shown explaining the delay of one year four months sixteen days in filing of the Civil Review Application.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
J. Alam/-
AFR/NAFR U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay in filing the Interlocutory Application for condoning delay in filing Civil Review is permissible.
Whether the Civil Review Application itself is permissible and maintainable given the dismissal of the Second Appeal on technical grounds.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Raghunathpur Nafar AcademyRelied on¶7
Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 649
Mahendra Prasad Singh
Kanhaiya Singh
Dilip Singh
Pankaj Singh
Manoj Singh
Rahul Singh
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
