Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Nutan Kumari Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Patna HC
2025
Nutan Kumari Vs The State of BiharNutan Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Dismissed¶28

Nutan Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC4 Feb 2025L.P.A/389/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Letters Patent Appeal No. 389 of 2019 in CWJC No. 2995 of 2014, Nutan Kumari v. State of Bihar (through Divisional Commissioner, Patna), District Magistrate Nalanda, CDPO Harnaut and Meena Devi; decided 04-02-2025; coram P. B. Bajanthri (author) and Sunil Dutta Mishra. Condonation of delay of about 2 years and 112 days (I.A. No. 01 of 2024) refused: illness since 2015 and death on 03.08.2017 of then counsel Mritunjay Prasad Singh held insufficient cause; additionally, LPA filed in 2019 but delay application filed only in 2024. I.A. No. 01 of 2024 dismissed; consequently LPA No. 389 of 2019 dismissed. No statute or precedent cited; no monetary quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

The reasons assigned in the delay-condonation application do not constitute sufficient reasons to condone the delay of about 2 years and 112 days in assailing the learned Single Judge's order dated 19.10.2016 in CWJC No. 2995 of 2014.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of about 2 years and 112 days in filing LPA No. 389 of 2019 against the learned Single Judge's order dated 19.10.2016 in CWJC No. 2995 of 2014 ought to be condoned (subject matter of I.A. No. 01 of 2024).

Court's answer

The reasons assigned in the delay-condonation application do not constitute sufficient reasons to condone the delay of about 2 years and 112 days in assailing the learned Single Judge's order dated 19.10.2016 in CWJC No. 2995 of 2014.

Ratio / Principle

Even apart from the insufficiency of the stated grounds, the present LPA was filed in the year 2019 whereas the delay application was filed only in the year 2024; on this count also the appellant has not made out a case for condonation of delay.

Key takeaways

I.A. No. 01 of 2024 stands dismissed.ratio¶27
Resultantly, the present LPA No. 389 of 2019 stands dismissed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay refused; appeal dismissed — Patna High Court (oral order per P. B. Bajanthri, J.; bench included Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.), 04-02-2025: I.A. No. 01 of 2024 in LPA No. 389 of 2019 (arising from CWJC No. 2995 of 2014) sought condonation of delay of about 2 years and 112 days in assailing the learned Single Judge's order dated 19.10.2016 dismissing the writ petition on merit. The grounds cited were the serious illness since 2015 and death on 03.08.2017 of the appellant's then counsel Sri Mritunjay Prasad Singh, and non-intimation of the hearing. Held: these reasons do not constitute sufficient reasons to condone the delay; further, the LPA was filed in 2019 whereas the delay application was filed only in 2024, so on that count also no case for condonation was made out. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2024 stands dismissed, and resultantly LPA No. 389 of 2019 stands dismissed.

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.389 of 2019 In

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2995 of 2014

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

Nutan Kumari Wife of Sri Satya Prakash Kumar R/o Village-Birampur, P.S.Harnaut, Dist-Nalanda

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through the Divisional Commissioner, Patna

The District Magistrate Nalanda

The Child Development Project Officer, Harnaut Nalanda

Meena Devi Wife of Late Chandra Bhushan Singh R/o Village-Birampur, P.S.-Harnaut, District-Nalanda

... ... Respondent/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr.Vikas Kumar Jha, Advocate

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

6 04-02-2025

Re:I.A. No. 01 of 2024

Heard I.A. No. 01 of 2024 filed in LPA No. 389 of

The reasons assigned for condonation of delay for about 2 years and 112 days are stated as under:-

“2. That the Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sri Mritunjay Prasad Singh was suffering from serious disease since 2015 and ultimately passed away on 03.08.2017 and therefore he could not appear when the case was called out. None informed the Appellant and therefore no one appeared on 19.10.2016 when the case was called out but the case was dismissed on merit by impugned

Patna High Court L.P.A No.389 of 2019(6) dt.04-02-2025 2/2

order dated 19.10.2016.

3. That there is not willful latches on the part of the Appellant rather it happened due to circumstances as stated above and in bonafide belief.

4. That the Appellant has a good case on merit and there is every chance of her success in this appeal.”

The aforementioned reasons does not constitute sufficient reasons to condone the delay of about 2 years and 112 days insofar as assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.10.2016 passed in CWJC No. 2995 of 2014. That apart the present LPA was filed in the year 2019, whereas delay application was filed in the year 2024. Even on this count, appellant has not made out a case so as to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2024 stands dismissed.

Resultantly, the present LPA No. 389 of 2019 stands dismissed.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

( Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)

abhishekkr/-

U

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the delay of about 2 years and 112 days in filing LPA No. 389 of 2019 against the learned Single Judge's order dated 19.10.2016 in CWJC No. 2995 of 2014 ought to be condoned (subject matter of I.A. No. 01 of 2024).¶21
The court held
The reasons assigned in the delay-condonation application do not constitute sufficient reasons to condone the delay of about 2 years and 112 days in assailing the learned Single Judge's order dated 19.10.2016 in CWJC No. 2995 of 2014.ratio¶27

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 19.10.2016 of the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2995 of 2014 dismissing the writ petition on merit, which the LPA sought to challenge.¶27
Learned Single Judge, Patna High Court · 19.10.2016
Prior proceeding
The appeal arises out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2995 of 2014.¶2
Prior proceeding
No one appeared for the appellant on 19.10.2016 when the case was called out, and the writ petition was dismissed on merit by the impugned order.¶22
Prior proceeding
Stated ground for the delay: the appellant's then counsel Sri Mritunjay Prasad Singh suffered serious disease since 2015 and passed away on 03.08.2017.¶22
Prior proceeding
I.A. No. 01 of 2024 in LPA No. 389 of 2019 sought condonation of delay of about 2 years and 112 days.¶21

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Nutan Kumari¶4
Mr.Naresh Chandra Verma, Sri Mritunjay Prasad Singh
respondent
The State of Bihar through the Divisional Commissioner, Patna¶7
Mr.Prince Kumar Mishra, Mr.Vikas Kumar Jha
respondent
The District Magistrate Nalanda¶8
Mr.Prince Kumar Mishra, Mr.Vikas Kumar Jha
respondent
The Child Development Project Officer, Harnaut Nalanda¶9
Mr.Prince Kumar Mishra, Mr.Vikas Kumar Jha
respondent
Meena Devi¶10
Mr.Prince Kumar Mishra, Mr.Vikas Kumar Jha

Coram

AI extract

P. B. Bajanthriauthor¶17
Sunil Dutta Mishramember¶16

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Patna HC
Decided on: 4 Feb 2025 · February
Registered: 13 Mar 2019
Case no.: L.P.A/389/2019
CNR: BRHC010290312019
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri Sunil Dutta Mishra
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Letters Patent Appeal

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from P. B. Bajanthri Sunil Dutta Mishra

Braj Mohan Prasad Singh Vs The State of Bihar
30 Jan 2025
Prabhat Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar
30 Jan 2025
Upendra Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.
30 Jan 2025
G. M. Kumar Vs Kiran Kumari
4 Feb 2025
Savitri Devi Vs Dulhin Anandi Devi
4 Feb 2025
The State of Bihar Vs Sikandre Azam
4 Feb 2025

Cite this judgement

Nutan Kumari v. The State of Bihar, L.P.A/389/2019 (PAT), decided on 4 February 2025.

The Patna High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Procedural history5

Order dated 19.10.2016 of the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2995 of 2014 dismissing the writ petition on merit, which the LPA sought to challenge.Learned Single Judge, Patna High Court · 19.10.2016
The appeal arises out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2995 of 2014.
No one appeared for the appellant on 19.10.2016 when the case was called out, and the writ petition was dismissed on merit by the impugned order.

View full history

Bench / Coram

P. B. Bajanthri and Sunil Dutta Mishra

Parties & counsel