Nutan Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

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

1.

The State of Bihar through the Divisional Commissioner, Patna 2.

The District Magistrate Nalanda 3.

The Child Development Project Officer, Harnaut Nalanda 4.

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) 04-02-2025 Re:I.A. No. 01 of 2024 Heard I.A. No. 01 of 2024 filed in LPA No. 389 of 2019. 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."

2. 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.

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

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) abhishekkr/- U