← Library
Patna High CourtC.Misc./1472/2018dismissed

Suresh Singh v. The Registrar, Civil Court, Patna And ORS

2018-10-11Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1472 of 2018 ======================================================

1. Suresh Singh aged about 72 years, Son of Late Ramayan Singh, resident of Village- Rampur Ismile (Bahpura), P.S. Bihta, District Patna presently residing at H.N.- 44, Sri Krishna Nagar, Road NO. 1, Patna. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The Registrar, Civil Court, Patna.

2. Sri Dayanand Singh, husband of the Late Indrapari Devi, Resident of Gorkhari, P.S. Bikram, District- Patna.

3. Smt. Lalpari Devi @ Lalpari Rai, Wife of Late Ramjee Rai, resident of Village- Kotwa- Narainpur, P.S. Narhi, District Balia (U.P.), Presently residing at mohalla- Sisodia, adjacent to the Gas- Godown near B.H.U. Varanasi (U.P.).

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

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 11-10-2018 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has field this Civil Misc. petition for a direction to the learned court below for reconstructing records of Title Suit No. 202 of 1982 in accordance with law. It appears that deposition of plaintiff witnesses No. 1 to 26 were lost from the records of Title Suit No. 202 of 1982 and the court sought permission from learned District Judge for reconstruction of records and, accordingly, deposition of plaintiff witnesses No. 1 to 26 were reconstructed in accordance with law but the petitioner again filed petition raising objection. The

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1472 of 2018 (2) dt.11-10-2018 2/2 learned Sub Judge vide order dated 20.07.2018 rejected the petition of the petitioner/ defendant holding that deposition of plaintiff witnesses have already been reconstructed on fresh water mark in accordance with the procedure but the petitioner again raised objection that the reconstruction has not been made in accordance with law.

I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. This Civil Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U