Prem Lal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.235 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11989 of 1995 ====================================================== Prem Lal Yadav son of Late Sheo Prasad Yadav resident of VillageBhawanipur Rajdham, P.S. Bhawanipur, District- Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The S.D.O., Dhamdaha, having his office at Dhamdaha, P.S. Dhamdaha, District- Purnea.

3.

The Anchal Adhikari, Bhawanipur, P.S. Bhawanipur, District- Purnea. (Respondents No. 1 to 3 respectively in writ) 4.

Manorma Devi, widow of Bishwanath Bhagat 5.

Bijay Kumar Bhagat 6.

Uday Kumar Both sons of Late Bishwanath Bhagat, Nos. 4 to 6, all are resident of village- Bhawanipur, Rajdham, P.S. Bhawanipur, DistrictPurnea. 7.

Poonam Kumari, daughter of Late Bishwanath Bhagat and wife of Sri Narayan Prasad Bhagat, resident of Village- Pratapganj, P.S. Pratapganj, Dist- Supaul.

8.

Suman Kumari, daughter of Late Bishwanath Bhagat Resident of VillageBhawanipur, Rajdham, P.S. Bhawanipur, Rajdham, P.S.- Bhawanipur, DisttPurnea. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Jayaswal, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA-7 Mr. Sangmitra Ghose, AC to GA-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 21-12-2023 Though the present review petition has been filed for review of the judgment dated 23.7.2015, passed in CWJC No. 11989 of 1995, however, after arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since none of the grounds, as envisaged under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of

Patna High Court C. REV. No.235 of 2015(11) dt.21-12-2023 2/2 Civil Procedure, 1908 exists so as to warrant review of the order of this Court dated 23.7.2015, passed in CWJC No. 11989 of 1995, nor any cogent or important evidence has been brought on record of the review petition nor there is any mistake apparent on the face of the record of the case, the review petitioner be granted liberty to file appropriate appeal.

2.

Accordingly, the present review petition stands disposed off as not pressed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies, as are otherwise available under the law.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U