← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/3182/2011dismissed

Bulanti Devi v. Ram Chandra Yadav

2015-09-09Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3182 of 2011 ===========================================================

1. Bulanti Devi W/O Ram Chandra Yadav R/O Village- Sonbari, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Ram Chandra Yadav S/O Late Jaldhari Yadav R/O Village- Sonbari, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pramod Kr. Mallick =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-09-2015 Heard.

The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2010 whereby the application seeking review of the order dated 11.1.10 passed by the learned Munsif 1st Madhubani in Title suit no. 35 of 2008 has been rejected.

Title suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of the gift deed dated 22.07.1964 said to have been executed by her in favour of the defendant as forged and fabricated. An application was filed by the plaintiff to permit her to exhibit the deed of gift dated 22.07.1964. A rejoinder thereto was filed by the defendant. On hearing both sides, the trial judge by order dated 11.1.2010 allowed the application filed by the plaintiff and permitted her to exhibit the

Patna High Court CWJC No.3182 of 2011 dt.09-09-2015 2/2 deed of gift in accordance with law. A review petition was filed by the plaintiff to review the said order which was considered and rejected by the impugned order dated 28.09.2010. The Court below in the order held as under:- " Accordingly , the Court has directed the plaintiff to get the aforesaid gift deed exhibited by adopting the legal procedures contained in the law concerned. There is no error or ambiguity in the impugned order passed by this court on 11.1.10.

On the basis of above discussion facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need to review the order dated 11.01.10."

After hearing both sides, in my view, the order passed by the trial Court does not merit any interference as no patent illegality has been committed by the Court in consideration and rejection of the review application.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U