Patna High CourtMJC/1376/2017dismissed

The Chairman Bihar State Housing Board And ORS v. Shushil Kumar Singh

2018-04-25Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 1376 of 2017 In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 1011 of 2016 ======================================================

1. The Chairman, Bihar State Housing Board , Mangals Road, Patna.

2. The Chief Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board , Mangals Road, Patna.

3. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board , Mangals Road, Division No. - 3, Patna.

4. The Assistant Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board , Mangals Road, Patna 20.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

Shushil Kumar Singh, S/o Late Sheo Narayan Singh, R/o Moh. Anishabad, Sheo Naranin Singh Lane, Saheed Rajendra Puri, Patna. ... ... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi For the Opp. Party/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4.

25-04-2018 Heard Shri Rabindra Kumar Priyardarshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The present petition has been filed for restoring an another restoration petition i.e. M.J.C. No. 1011 of 2016, which stood dismissed on 28-02-2017, due to non-prosecution. The restoration petition (i.e. M.J.C. No. 1011 of 2016) was filed for restoration of Civil Review No. 148 of 2012, which stood dismissed due to non-compliance of peremptory order dated 01-02-2013. By the said order, one week peremptory time was allowed to comply the order of the Lawazima Board. Despite the fact that the review petition stood dismissed due to non-

Patna High Court MJC No.1376 of 2017(4) dt.25-04-2018 2/2 compliance of peremptory order, which was passed in the month of February, 2013, restoration petition was filed after several years i.e. in the year 2016, that too stood dismissed due to nonprosecution and thereafter, the present restoration petition has been filed.

I have heard Sri Priyadarshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. He tried to persuade the Court for allowing the restoration petition.

However, in view of facts and circumstances, particularly; the fact that civil review stood dismissed long back in the year 2013, there is no reason to entertain the present restoration petition, which has been filed primarily for restoring the restoration petition.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) anay U