Sahdeo Paswan v. Sheoshen Paswan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1228 of 2019 In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2052 of 2014 ====================================================== 1.

Sahdeo Paswan, aged about 69 years, Male, Son of Late Balo Paswan 2.

Bijni Devi @ Bijlo Devi, aged about 62 years, Female, wife of Late Sukhdeo Paswan 3.

Umesh Paswan, Male, aged about 28 years Son of Late Sukhdo Paswan 4.

Balmiki Paswan, Male, aged about 21 years, Son of Late Sukhdo Paswan All resident of Village-Kakanchore Tola-Maghi, P.S. Laxmipur, District-Jamui.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

Sheoshen Paswan Son of Late Guhi Paswan 2.

Parmeshwar Paswan Son of Late Nanku Paswan 3.

Raj Kumar Paswan Son of Late Nanku Paswan 4.

Birwal Paswan Son of Late Nanku Paswan All resident of Village-Kakan Chora Tola-Maghi, P.S. Laxmipur, District-Jamui.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prakash Mahto, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-05-2019 Heard Sri Prakash Mahto, learned counsel for the petitioners.

The present petition has been filed with a prayer to restore a restoration petition i.e. M.J.C.No. 2052 of 2014, which stood dismissed due to non-compliance of peremptory order dated 22.10.2014.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since there were some error in the order, delay has occurred

Patna High Court MJC No.1228 of 2019(3) dt.08-05-2019 2/2 in filing the present restoration petition.

However, at least, twice restoration petition was allowed and now the present restoration petition has been filed. Primarily, a review petition was filed for review of an order passed in S.A. No.246 of 1993, which was passed long back on 06.02.1997. The ordersheet of S.A. No.246 of 1993 shows that on 18.03.1994, after hearing both sides, lower court record was called for. Despite the fact that S.A. was disposed of long back on 06.02.1997, after much delay a review petition was filed and, thereafter, on number of occasions, restoration petitions were rejected and again the present restoration petition has been filed for restoring a restoration petition.

I do not find any ground to pass favourable order. The restoration petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) nawalkrs/- U