Patna High CourtC. REV./406/2013dismissed

Hari Shankar Arun v. Amod Kumar Das And ANR.

2015-07-01Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.406 of 2013 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8663 of 2013 =========================================================== Hari Shankar Arun, son of Ramesh Lal Das, Resident of village-Chilauni, Sukha Nagar, P.S.-Pratapganj, District-Supaul..........Defendant-Respondent No. 2 .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. Amod Kumar Das, son of Sri Bisheshwar Lal Das, Resident of village-Chilauni Sukha Narayan Tola, Terha Morh, P.O.-Chilauni, P.S. Pratapganj, DistrictSupaul, through his Power of Attorney Holder dated 12.05.2003, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Das, son of Late Bisheshwar Lal Das, Resident of Terha Morh Chilauni, P.S. Pratapganj, District- Supaul ..............Plaintiff- Petitioner .......Opp. Party No.1

2. Renu Kumar Das, son of Sri Jay Nandan Lal Das, Resident of Village- Chilauni Sukha Nagar Tola, Terha Morh, P.O.-Chilauni P.S.- Pratapganj, DistrictSupaul............Defendant.........Respondent No. 2 Opp. Party No.2 presently resident of village-Kasba, P.S. Kasba, Dist. Purnea .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dronacharya, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-07-2015 This is an application seeking review of an order dated 10.09.2013 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8663 of 2013.

2. Mr. Dronacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that there is an apparent error in the order under review inasmuch as the submission made on behalf of the respondents to the effect that Power of Attorney holder, Raj Kumar

Patna High Court C. REV. No.406 of 2013 dt.01-07-2015 2/2 Das was not authorized to file the suit for specific performance, has not been considered and the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was allowed merely on the ground that the plaintiff himself had verified the plaint.

3. I have heard Mr. Dronacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeking review of the said order. I do not find any such error, apparent on the face of it, warranting its review.

4. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

5. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Vats/- U