The State Of Bihar And ORS v. Kapileshwar Jha And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.250 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.395 of 2014 ====================================================== 1.

The State Of Bihar.

2.

The District Collector, Saharsa.

3.

The Additional Collector , Saharsa.

4.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Koshi Project, Saharsa. 5.

The Executive Engineer, Water Discharge Division, Kosi Project, Saharsa. 6.

The Sub- Divisional officer, Water Discharge Sub- Division, Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Kapileshwar Jha, 2.

Kameshwar Jha, 3.

Rameshwar Jha, 4.

Damodar Jha, All sons of Late Guneshwar Jha, 5.

Rajiv Kumar Jha, Son of Sri Damodar Jha, All residents of Village- Patuaha, P.S. Saharsa, District- Saharsa.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vivek Prasad, GP-7 Mr.Binod Kumar Sinha, AC to GP-7 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Abhay Shankar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 14-12-2023

1. Though the present review petition is directed against the order dated 10.02.2014, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No.395 of 2014, however, after the learned counsel for the review petitioners has advanced arguments for some time, this Court finds none of the grounds, as envisaged under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 exists so as to warrant review of the aforesaid

Patna High Court C. REV. No.250 of 2014(13) dt.14-12-2023 2/2 order dated 10.02.2014. In fact, it is a well settled law that review is not a rehearing of the main matter and review would lie only on detection, without much debate of an error, which is not the case here, hence apparently the review petition is not maintainable. Reference in this connection be had to the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asharfi Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 86 and the one rendered in the case of High Court of Tripura, Through the Registrar General Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and Ors., reported in (2019) 16 SCC 663.

2. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the review petitioners seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioners to avail such other alternative remedies, as are otherwise available under the law. Liberty so sought is granted.

3. The petition stands disposed off.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Saurav/- U