Patna High CourtC. REV./336/2016disposed

Nirmala Sinha @ Nirmala Devi v. Mridula Devi @ Manju And ORS

2016-11-09Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.336 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8189 of 2013 ====================================================== NIRMALA SINHA @ NIRMALA DEVI WIFE OF LATE VIJAY KUMAR SINHA RESIDENT OF BHEKH CHAND DAS LANE, MURARPUR, POLICE STATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT GAYA. .... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

1. MRIDULA DEVI @ MANJU WIFE OF SURYA DEV SINGH

2. ANJU DEVI WIFE OF BACHAN SINGH

3. KAMINI DEVI WIFE OF SUBHASH SINGH ALL RESIDENT OF RANG BAHADUR ROAD NEAR SHIDOHAK SANGH, HOLDING NO.16, POLICE STATION KOTWALI DISTRICT-GAYA.

.... .... RESPONDENT/S ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 09-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

Petitioner of CWJC no.8189/2013 which was disposed of on 02.05.2016 has filed instant review petition on the ground that at an earlier occasion as the correct factual aspect has not been placed before the court, therefore, it has been incorporated in the order that seven witnesses have already been examined whereupon the order passed by the lower court was kept immuned but the fact remains, only three witnesses has been examined till today and on account thereof, the instant review petition be allowed.

The order dated 02.05.2016 might have been complied with in the background of the fact that the learned lower court was directed to conclude the trial within one month. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the present

Patna High Court C. REV. No.336 of 2016 (4) dt.09-11-2016 moment has submitted that court was vacant which has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent stating that Presiding Officer is present.

Be that as it may, I do not see any cogent reason of review the order dated 02.05.2016 passed in CWJC No.8189 of 2013, consequent thereupon instant petition is rejected. However, the learned lower court is directed to be sincere in complying the order dated 02.05.2016.

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.) Prakash Narayan U