Bibi Wahida Khatoon v. Syed Teyabul Tahid And ORS.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.181 of 2014 (4) dt.15-09-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Review No.181 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9103 of 2007 ====================================================== Bibi Mahida Khatoon .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Syed Teyabul Tahid & Ors.
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad For the State : Mr. Amresh Kumar Siwha, A.C. to G.A.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 15-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The civil review application has been filed for review of the order dated 20.12.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No.9103 of 2007. At the stage of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner does not raise any legal objection to the said order, except to say that there was a direction of this Court to dispose of the title suit by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, in seisin of the said case, within a period of six months but the same has not been done despite the passage of nearly two years and nine months. The same does not appear to be any ground for filing a review application.
As a matter of fact, it appears that the review-petitioner, who was respondent No.4 in the writ application, despite the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.181 of 2014 (4) dt.15-09-2016 service of notice, did not appear and the allegation has been made against her that she had executed as many as 13 sale deeds during the pendency of the miscellaneous appeal which were much more than her claim/share in the family properties. For the said reason, the writ application was allowed and the respondent No.4 was restrained from transferring any part of the suit land by any further sale deed during the pendency of the suit.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no ground for review has been pointed out by learned counsel for the reviewpetitioner, particularly considering the fact that she did not appear in the writ petition and contest the same. The review application is, accordingly, dismissed as being devoid of any merit. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) V.P.Sinha/- U