Patna High CourtC.Misc./32/2017dismissed

Amita Kumari Verma @ Shobha Verma And ORS v. Smt. Meera Devi

2017-02-20Mr. Justice Mungeshwar Sahoo2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.32 of 2017 ====================================================== Amita Kumari Verma @ Shobha Verma & Ors .... .... Petitioners

Versus

Smt. Meera Devi .... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad For the Respondent : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 20-02-2017 Heard learned counsel Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad for the petitioners.

Perused the impugned order dated 15.07.2016 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-VII, West Champaran at Bettiah in Title Suit No.62 of 2008 whereby the learned court below has rejected the review application filed by the defendants-petitioners. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The petitioners filed written statement and also counter claim. The petitioners then filed application before the court below seeking permission to reconstruct the boundary wall on the ground that the petitioners have already constructed the boundary wall prior to institution of the suit but the plaintiff has demolished the same. By order dated 20.02.2016 the said application was rejected. This order is not challenged. The petitioners then filed review application. By the

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.32 of 2017 (4) dt.20-02-2017 impugned order the court below has rejected this review application. The petitioners have challenged only this order. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the court below has considered the submissions of both the parties and thereafter rejected the same.

Admitted position is that now at present there is no boundary wall at the spot. The court below considered each and every aspect of the matter argued by the parties before the court below and then found that it is not a case for review. In such circumstances, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order and thus, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Harish/- U