This order dismisses a Civil Review petition filed to recall a previous order regarding a Letters Patent Appeal. The court held that the review scope is limited under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, citing a Supreme Court decision, and noted the petitioner failed to seek production of new documents earlier.
Civil Review Petition No. 20 of 2020 dismissed.
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.20 of 2020
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.276 of 2019
======================================================
Manju Singh, W/O late Chandra Mauleshwar Prasad Narayan Singh, R/O Village- Mahthaud Kataiya, P.S.- Basopatti, District- Madhubani, Presently R/O at Mohan Bhawan, East Boring Canal Road, Patna- 800001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
4 06-10-2023 The present Civil Review is filed for recalling the
order dated 19.12.2019 passed in L.P.A. No. 276 of 2019 with reference to later development, i.e., after filing of the writ petition in the month of June, 2018 to the extent that on 18.07.2018 a new development has taken place, the same is
Patna High Court C. REV. No.20 of 2020(4) dt.06-10-2023 2/2
required to be taken note of in reviewing the order dated 19.12.2019 passed in L.P.A. No. 276 of 2019. The same cannot be adjudicated for the reasons that as on the date of filing writ petition document cited now dated 18.07.2018 was not existing. In that event, petitioner should have filed application for production of additional documents during pendency of the writ petition, which was decided on 29.01.2019. This is evident that petitioner had sufficient time.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Arun Kumar Jha, J)
GAURAV S./- U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the scope of a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited preventing recall due to lateness in presenting new developments.
Whether the petitioner should have filed an application for production of additional documents instead of filing a review petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan and Ors.Relied on¶24
_S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan and Ors._ reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 185 · Who else cites this
Manju Singh
The State of Bihar and Ors.
P. B. Bajanthri
Arun Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
