Raghubansh Singh And ANR. v. Bishambhar Singh And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.393 of 2014 In SA 283 of 1998 ====================================================== Raghubansh Singh, son of Dudhnath Singh, resident of villageChamanpura, presently village-Rewa Tirth, P.S.-Baikunthpur, P.O. Chamanpura, District-Gopalganj.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Bishambhar Singh son of Ram Naresh Singh.

2. Smt. Shakuntala Devi, wife of Bishambhar Singh, both residents of village and P.O. Chamanpura, Paragana-Marhal, P.S.-Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj.

3. Nand Kishore Singh son of Krishnadeo Singh resident of village Rewa Tirth P.S. Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 12-08-2015 Heard Mr. S.S. Dwivedi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

This review application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.03.2013 passed by this Court in S.A. No. 283 of 1998. As this review application is barred by limitation, the petitioner has filed interlocutory application (I.A. No. 8792 of 2014) for condonation of delay.

It has been stated in the interlocutory application that the petitioner had filed S.L.A. (Civil) No. 20947 of 2013 before

Patna High Court C. REV. No.393 of 2014 (4) dt.12-08-2015 the Hon'ble Apex Court which was dismissed by order dated 13.12.2013. The present review application has been filed on 26.11.2014 and the office has pointed out that the delay is of 1 year 7 month and 9 days. The ground for condonation of delay, as stated in the interlocutory application, is that the delay was caused as the petitioner had to rush to Delhi in order to get the records and thereafter the present review application has been filed. The petitioner had stated that there is no deliberate laches in filing this review application. Mr. Dwivedi, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this review application has got merit and as such the delay may be condoned as there is cogent explanation furnished by the petitioner.

It has also been submitted that there is no bar in maintainability of a review application even after the dismissal of the special leave petition by the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the case of Meghmala Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy, 2010 (8) SCC 383 after considering the earlier decisions on the issue has laid down the principle in this regard as follows:- "25.....

Patna High Court C. REV. No.393 of 2014 (4) dt.12-08-2015 and it remains pending till the special leave petition stands dismissed, the review petition deserves to be considered. In case it is filed subsequent to dismissal of the special leave petition, the process of filing review application amounts to abuse of process of the court...."

In view of the dictum as above, this review application filed after the dismissal of special leave petition is held to be abuse of process of the court and is, accordingly, dismissed. (V. Nath, J) Devendra/- U