Alok Kumar v. Bank Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.136 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5546 of 2023 ====================================================== Alok Kumar Son of Sheo Pujan Pandey, Resident of House No. A/6, Bank of India Colony, Opposite Taxila Apartment, Police Station - Shastri Nagar, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Bank of India through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Star House C5, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051. 2.

Chief Manager -cum-Branch Manager, Bank of India, Jamal Road Branch, Patna.

3.

Authorizing Officer, Bank of India, Zonal Office, R-Block Chauraha, Patna, Bihar - 800001.

4.

Sangeeta Shrivastava, Wife of Late Ajit Kumar, Resident of Mannat, Road No. 2, Near Ganga Prabha Apartment, Kali Mandir Road, Manas Marg, East Patel Nagar, Patna - 800024.

5.

The Inspector, Weights and Measure, Lakhisarai. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 31-07-2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defect(s) as pointed out by the office.

2. Heard the parties.

3. The present review petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):

"against the order dated 27.04.2023 passed in CWJC No. 5546 of 2023 by Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma (as his lordship then was)

Patna High Court C. REV. No.136 of 2023(3) dt.31-07-2025 2/2 whereby the writ petition has been held to be not maintainable on the ground that the issue raised in the writ petition involves disputed question of fact which cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction which is per se contrary to the material on record and admitted case of the parties as no disputed question of fact was involved for return of title deed after closure of loan account."

4. Ms. Shrishti on the instruction of Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition as it has become infructuous.

5. Accordingly, the same stands disposed of as infructuous.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U