Patna High CourtMJC/732/2018dismissed

Shakilur Rahman v. The Managing Director Of Bihar State Financial Corporation And ORS

2019-02-06Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.732 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5059 of 2014 ====================================================== Shakilur Rahman Son of Late Khalilur Rahman, Resident of 32, Bari Road, P.S. Kotwali, District Gaya.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Managing Director of Bihar State Financial Corporation, Frazer Road, Patna

2. The Zonal Manager of Bihar State Financial Corporation, Frazer Road, Patna.

3. The Divisional Manager of Bihar State Financial Corporation, Frazer Road, Patna.

4. The Branch Manager of Bihar State Financial Corporation, District Gaya. ... ... Opposite Party 1 set

5. The Chief Managing Director of Central Bank of India, Mombay/ Mumbai.

6. The Chief Manager of Central Bank of India, Patna.

7. The Zonal Manager of Central Bank of India, Patna.

8. The Regional Manager of Central Bank of India, Gaya.

9. The Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Gaya. ... ... Opposite Party 2nd Set ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Sheikh Arkan Ahmad, Advocate For the Bank :

Mr.Nishi Nath Ojha, Advocate For the BSFC :

Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 06-02-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The present petition has been filed for restoration of CWJC No. 5059 of 2014 which stood dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 12.01.2016.

3. This Court, however, takes note that CWJC No. 5059 of 2014 was dismissed as far back as on 12.01.2016 whereas the present restoration petition has been filed after more than two years on

Patna High Court MJC No.732 of 2018 dt.06-02-2019 2/2 07.03.2018. As further noted in the order dated 12.01.2016 it appears that the petitioner has been pursuing a stale claim related to the year 2006 and 2009.

4. A perusal of the statement made in paragraph 3 of the restoration petition does not disclose any reason explaining the delay after the order of dismissal of the writ petition was passed.

5. This Court, therefore, is not satisfied to allow the restoration petition which stands dismissed.

BT/Chandran (Vikash Jain, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 12.02.2019 Transmission Date N.A.