Patna High CourtC. REV./33/2012dismissed

Haruhar Rau v. Kamal Mishra

2017-04-27Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No. 33 of 2012 In C.R. 448 of 2009 ====================================================== Harihar Rai, Son of Late Muneshwar Rai.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. Kamal Mishra & Ors.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Bhavesh Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 27-04-2017 Heard the parties.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that at para-4 of the petition, in place of order dated 14.09.2006, it has wrongly been typed as 14.09.2009 and, therefore, petitioner should be permitted to make correction at para-4 of the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction at para-4 of the petition within course of the day.

This review petition has been preferred against the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 448 of 2009 by which this court dismissed the aforesaid revision petition.

The aforesaid Civil Revision No. 448 of 2009 was filed

Patna High Court C. REV. No.33 of 2012 (8) dt.27-04-2017 2/2 by the petitioner against the order dated 05.02.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division 1st court, Samastipur in Title Suit No 243 of 2002 by which the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division 1st court rejected the amendment petition filed on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the aforesaid amendment petition had been filed at belated stage. The finding of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division 1st court, Samastipur was confirmed by order dated 22.11.2011 passed in Civil Revision No. 448 of 2009.

Now, the petitioner wants review of the aforesaid order on the ground that only correction of boundaries of the plot was sought to amend and there was no delay in filing the amendment petition but in my view, the relief as sought by the petitioner is beyond the purview of review because in review the court has got a very limited power and the court cannot overturn the previous order without any reasonable ground.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, this review petition stands dismissed on admission stage itself.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) SHAHZAD/- U