Patna High CourtL.P.A/811/2015dismissed

Smt. Sukni Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-01-10Justice Smt. Nilu Agrawal,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.811 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5739 of 1988 ======================================================

1. Smt. Sukni Devi, Wife of Sri Jagarnath Singh, resident of villageTelthua, P.S. Rafiganj, District- Aurangabad. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Joint Director, Chakbandi, Gaya.

3. The Deputy Director, Chakbandi (State Planning) Gaya,

4. The Consolidation Officer, Rafiganj

5. Shanti Devi, Wife of Ram Chandra Singh, resident of village Barahchita, P.O. Telkupa, P.S. Wazirganj, District- Gaya.

6. Kanti Devi, Wife of Ambika Singh, resident of village Barahchita, P.O. Telkupa, P.S. Wazirganj, District- Gaya.

7. Gyantri Devi, Wife of Rabindra Singh, resident of village- Chaksingar, Tola Karshali, P.O. & P.S. Judanpur, District- Vaishali. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari For the Private respondents : Mr S.K.Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr Praveen Prakash For the State : Mr Kamlesh Kishore, AC to SC 12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) 10-01-2017 I.A. No.3465 of 2015 is a limitation petition for condonation of delay of 350 days. In paragraph 3, the reason for delay is that the appellant is a poor lady and she could not manage the required resources for filing the appeal. The private respondent no.5 has filed a counter affidavit and rebutted such a stand as totally false and misleading. Details of the family have been provided in paragraph 4. It is a

Patna High Court LPA No.811 of 2015 (7) dt.10-01-2017 2/2 nucleus family and that the litigation is being carried out by the appellant with due support and assistance of the family. The picture which is sought to be painted on behalf of the appellant for the extraordinary delay is based on falsehood. The Court is satisfied that it is not a fit case where condonation of delay should be allowed.

I.A. No.3465 of 2015 is dismissed so is the appeal. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) sk U