Patna High CourtL.P.A/874/2014dismissed

Dasrath Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-08-02Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.874 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2355 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Dasrath Prasad Yadav son of Late Rambalak Yadav @ Ram Balak Rai resident of village - Dhanauti, P.O. Parsagarh, P.S. Ekma, District - Saran .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Member Board of Revenue, Patna

2. (i) Sachidanand Dwivdei (ii) Diwakar Dwivedi Both sons of late Sudhakar Dwivedi (iii) Rama Devi (iv) Geeta Devi (v) Sindhu Devi Daughters of late Sudhakar Devi All residents of village - Dhanauti, P.O. Parsagarh, P.S. Ekma, District - Saran

3. (i) Bipin Dwivedi (ii) S.Kumar Dwivedi Both sons of Late Kashinath Dwivedi both residents of village - Dhanauti, P.O. Parsagarh, P.S. Ekma, District - Saran .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Ms Vagisha Pragya V. Mr. Ramadhar Shekhar For the State : Mr. Shankar Kumar, AC to AAG 7 For the Pvt. Respondents : Mr Jai Shankar Pathak =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 02-08-2017 Heard counsel for he appellant, counsel for the private respondents and the State.

The order dated 03.03.2014 speaks for itself. If a litigant has some kind of a game plan to keep getting the revision application dismissed and then restored, which has happened three times over and if the appellant also chooses not to substitute dead respondent and

Patna High Court LPA No.874 of 2014 dt.02-08-2017 2/2 opposite party within the time frame indicated then obviously the hue and cry, which is being raised on behalf of the appellant by the counsel, the bona fide of which is not established from the fact what they are. It is a fit case where no interference is required to be made with the order of the learned Single Judge. It is not only about interest of the litigant but also the interest of the system keeping in mind the conduct of such litigant.

The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) sk AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 02.08.2017 Transmission Date NA