Dismissed

Union of India Thru.the Chief v. Giridhari Singh and Ors.

Patna HC2 Jul 2024MJC/1247/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Miscellaneous Judgment Case filed for restoration, noting that the petitioners had slept over the matter for eight years, failed to comply with previous orders, and neglected service and substitution steps despite being granted time.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5000/- payable to Patna High Court Legal Services Committee.

Union of India Thru.the Chief Vs Giridhari Singh and Ors. — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1247 of 2008

¶2

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

¶3

UNION OF INDIA THRU.THE CHIEF

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus ... ... Opposite Party/s

¶6

GIRIDHARI SINGH and ORS ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.M.P. Dixit Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dixit Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chaubey Ms. Swastika Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mr. Milind Raj Dixit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) Date : 02-07-2024

¶7

None appears for the petitioner.

¶8

2.The petitioner on behalf of Telecom BSNL presented this M.J.C. for restoration which is arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 10636 of 2005 and it was dismissed for non-compliance of certain orders/directions on 30^th October, 2007 . Resultantly, the present M.J.C 1247 of 2008 has been filed. The petitioners are not serious in adjudicating the present matter as is evident from the dates and events even though the present M.J.C was filed in the year 2008. They are least bothered to get the matter listed after due compliance of office objection. They slept over the matter for about eight years for the reasons that on judicial side for the first time the matter was listed on 22.11.2016.

¶9

In fact, on 22.11.2016 the following order was

¶10

Patna High Court MJC No.1247 of 2008 dt.02-07-2024 2/3

¶11

passed by the Co-ordinate Bench:-

¶12

“As prayed for, two weeks’ time is allowed to learned counsel for the petitioners to comply with the order dated 23.06.2014 of the Lawazima Board, failing which the application shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench.”

¶13

Thereafter on 27.03.2017 the following order was

¶14

passed:-

¶15

“Issue notice to the respondents, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D as well as ordinary process must be filed within one week. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.”

¶16

Today, we have come across service of notice to

¶17

Opposite Party No. 01 to 25 was ordered and it was validly served on Opposite party No. 7,9,15,18,14 and 25. Opposite Party No. 2,4,6,10,11,16 and 21 were served on the concerned respondent’s family member in this regard jointness affidavit has not been filed. Opposite party No. 1, 8, 13 and 23 have died during pendency of the present litigation. Resultantly, the petitioners are required to file substitution petition. They are least bothered to take necessary steps. Further Opposite Party No. 3,5,12,14,17,19,20 and 22 are yet to be served and no fresh steps have been taken.

¶18

6.Taking note of these lapses on the part of the petitioners the present petition and so also not prosecuting the present case even though matter was called on two occasions. Therefore, the

¶19

Patna High Court MJC No.1247 of 2008 dt.02-07-2024 3/3

¶20

present petition stands dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5000/-. Cost shall be remitted in Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks.

¶21

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

¶22

( Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶23

krishnakant/-

¶24

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	04.07.2024
Transmission Date	NA

Union of India Thru.the Chief v. Giridhari Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India Thru.the Chief v. Giridhari Singh and Ors.

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

Phul Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Lakhi Chand Ganesh and Anr.

Bipin Bihari Lal Vs the State of Bihar through the Secretary (Home), Govt. of Bihar, Patna

Naresh Kumar Goyal and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Transport, Government Of Bihar

Rajiv Kumar Vs The State of Bihar through Sri Deepak Kumar

Ghurhu Singh @ Paras Nath Singh Vs The State of Bihar