Dayanand Singh v. The Bihar State Financial Corporation Through The Chairman And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.6 of 2018 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1601 of 2016 ====================================================== Dayanand Singh son of Late Baldeo Prasad Singh resident of village Bhalaur, P.O. - Pawai, P.S. - Amarpur, Dist - Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.
The Bihar State Financial Corporation Through The Chairman, Fraser Road, Patna 2.
The Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Fraser Road, Patna - 1.
3.
The Branch Manager, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Kathalbari Bhagalpur.
4.
Bineet Kumar Roy son of Shri Manju Kumar Roy resident of village - Janidih, P.O. and P.S. Ghogha, Dist - Bhagalpur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Vivekanand Vivek, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ajay Kumar Rastogi Aag 10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 06-11-2019 We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and we find that the applicant had been granted an indulgence of making a deposit against which an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 31st July, 2015.
The applicant appears to have defaulted and then he filed C.W.J.C. No. 5787 of 2015 that was dismissed after taking notice of the fact that the applicant himself defaulted and
Patna High Court C. REV. No.6 of 2018(5) dt.06-11-2019 2/2 had enjoyed the privilege of the interim order for almost one year. The writ petition was accordingly, dismissed. The applicant preferred a Letters Patent Appeal giving rise to this review application, that was also dismissed after having taken note of the aforesaid facts.
We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record so as to entertain this review application. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that if one more indulgence is granted, the applicant may attempt to make good the deficiency and make a re-payment. Such a prayer cannot be entertained in a review application. Since the review application is not maintainable, this prayer cannot be considered. The application is accordingly, consigned.
(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) avin/- U