Jharkhand High Court
Bhola Prasad Bhagat vs Bijay Kumar Bhagat on 27 March, 2018
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2409 of 2011
1. Bhola Prasad Bhagat, son of Late Radha Prasad Bhagat,
resident of Mohalla Harindanga Bazar, POPakur, PS Pakur
(Town), DistrictPakur
2. Annapurna Devi, wife of Late Shiv Narain Bhagat, resident of
villageHarindanga Bazar, near Tin Bangla, POPakur,
PSPakur(T), DistrictPakur ... ... Decree Holders/Petitioners
Versus
1. Bijay Kumar Bhagat, son of Sri Haridwar Prasad Bhagat
2. Haridwar Prasad Bhagat, son of Late Namani Bhagat
3. Smt. Sangita Devi, daughter of Sri Ram Nath Bhagat, all
residents of Mohalla, Harindanga Bazar (Tin Bunglow),
POPakur, PSPakur (T), DistrictPakur
... ... Judgment Debtors/Respondents
4. Bijoy Kr. Gope, S/o Santoshi Gope, resident of Pakur,
PO,PS&DistrictPakur
5. Smt. Shefalika Rai, W/o Krishna Das Rai, resident of Pakur,
PO,PS&DistrictPakur
6. Raj Kr. Gope, S/o Bihari Lal Gope, resident of Pakur,
PO,PSDistrictPakur
7. Master Sundar Das, S/o Heman Das, resident of Pakur,
PO,PS&DistrictPakur
8. Pakur Quarries Ltd., Pakur, PO,PS&DistrictPakur
9. Seth Hirlumal, S/o Jugan Mal, resident of Pakur,
PO,PS&DistrictPakur
10. Baijnath Kedia, S/o Sagarmal Kedia, resident of Pakur,
PO,PS&DistrictPakur
11. Jagdish Dokania, S/o Murari Lal Dokania, resident of Pakur,
PO,PS&DistrictPakur
12. Sai Gobindram, S/oSant Ram, resident of Pakur,
PO,PS&DistrictPakur
13. Kanhai Lal Das, S/o Kunj Bihari Das, resident of Pakur,
PO,PS&DistrictPakur
14. Kedar Sing, S/oIswar Sing, resident of Pakur,
PO,PS&DistrictPakur
15. Mahadeo Singh, S/oAnna Singh, resident of Pakur,
PO,PS&DistrictPakur
16. Ram Charan Gope, S/o Debi Gope, resident of Pakur,
PO,PS&DistrictPakur
17. Sukriti Kr. Mandal, Bhajan Kr. Mandal, S/oHamindra Mohan
Mandal, resident of Pakur, PO,PS&DistrictPakur
18. Haris Gangwani, S/oMulchand Gangwani, resident of Pakur,
PO,PS&DistrictPakur
2
19. Lata Debi Lakwani, W/o Khemchand Lakwani, resident of
Pakur, PO,PS&DistrictPakur
20. Lakshman Halwai, S/o Dhani Ram Halwai, resident of Pakur,
PO,PS&DistrictPakur
21. Badri Pd. Halwai, S/o Shib Pd. Halwai, resident of Pakur,
PO,PS&DistrictPakur ... ... Proforma Respondents
-----------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioners : Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, Advocate For the Respondents :
------------------
06/27.03.2018 Again a prayer for adjournment is made.
2. On the last three occasions hearing of this writ petition has been deferred at the instance of the petitioners.
3. The prayer seeking adjournment is declined.
4. It would be pertinent to mention here that about seven years after this writ petition was first listed for hearing, on 06.12.2017 when it was next listed for hearing it was adjourned for 10.01.2018. On the said date on the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for filing additional documents, the writ petition was posted for hearing on 23.02.2018. Order dated 23.02.2018 reads as under :
"The petitioners have challenged order dated 08.12.2010 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 03 of 2007 which was initiated on an application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Primafacie, this writ petition is not maintainable. Seven years after the said order was passed, this writ petition was pressed. On 10.01.2018 the learned counsel for the petitioners sought adjournment for filing additional documents, however, today again, a prayer for adjournment is made on a similar ground. Post the matter on 27.03.2018."
5. Contending that against the order dismissing the application for review no appeal would lie under Order XLIII Rule 1(w) CPC, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits 3 that this writ petition is maintainable against the impugned order dated 08.12.2010 passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 03 of 2007/Civil Misc. Case No. 5 of 2007.
6. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that if it appears to the High Court that in a case decided by any court subordinate to the High Court, against which no appeal lies, the subordinate court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularities, the High Court may make such orders in the case as it thinks fit.
7. Against an order by which a civil review petition is allowed, no doubt an appeal would lie under Order XLIII Rule 1(w) CPC, however, in view of Section 115 CPC, against the impugned order dated 08.02.2010 by which the civil review petition has been dismissed, the writ petition would not lie and accordingly this writ petition is held not maintainable.
8. The writ petition is dismissed.
9. The petitioners may, however, avail remedy as available in law to them.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj/