Patna High Court - Orders
Renu Sinha vs Bajrangi Ram @ Bajo Ram & Ors on 1 March, 2013
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Revision No.2383 of 2007
======================================================
1. Renu Sinha D/O Singheshwar Prasad @ Chamo Prasad R/O Village-
Rajowna, P.S. & P.O.- Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai, Presently R/O
Mohalla- Alkapuri, P.O.- Anisabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna
2. Rita Sinha D/O Singheshwar Prasad @ Chamo Prasad R/O Village-
Rajowna, P.S. & P.O.- Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai, Presently R/O
Mohalla- Alkapuri, P.O.- Anisabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna
3. Madhu Sinha D/O Singheshwar Prasad @ Chamo Prasad R/O Village-
Rajowna, P.S. & P.O.- Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai, Presently R/O
Mohalla- Alkapuri, P.O.- Anisabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna
4. Seema Sinha D/O Singheshwar Prasad @ Chamo Prasad R/O Village-
Rajowna, P.S. & P.O.- Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai, Presently R/O
Mohalla- Alkapuri, P.O.- Anisabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna
5. Nutan Sinha D/O Singheshwar Prasad @ Chamo Prasad R/O Village-
Rajowna, P.S. & P.O.- Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai, Presently R/O
Mohalla- Alkapuri, P.O.- Anisabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna
6. Rajani Sinha D/O Singheshwar Prasad @ Chamo Prasad R/O Village-
Rajowna, P.S. & P.O.- Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai, Presently R/O
Mohalla- Alkapuri, P.O.- Anisabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna
7. Mithilesh Kr. Sinha S/O Singheshwar Prasad @ Chamo Prasad R/O
Village- Rajowna, P.S. & P.O.- Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai, Presently
R/O Mohalla- Alkapuri, P.O.- Anisabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna
8. Rajeshwar Kr. S/O Singheshwar Prasad @ Chamo Prasad R/O Village-
Rajowna, P.S. & P.O.- Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai, Presently R/O
Mohalla- Alkapuri, P.O.- Anisabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna
9. Rakesh Kr. Sinha S/O Singheshwar Prasad @ Chamo Prasad R/O
Village- Rajowna, P.S. & P.O.- Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai, Presently
R/O Mohalla- Alkapuri, P.O.- Anisabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna
10. Anu Sinha D/O Singheshwar Prasad @ Chamo Prasad R/O Village-
Rajowna, P.S. & P.O.- Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai, Presently R/O
Mohalla- Alkapuri, P.O.- Anisabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna
11. Pramila Devi R/O Village- Rajowna, P.S. & P.O.- Lakhisarai, District-
Lakhisarai, Presently R/O Mohalla- Alkapuri, P.O.- Anisabad, P.S.-
Gardanibagh, District- Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bajrangi Ram @ Bajo Ram S/O Late Sakal Ram R/O Village- Chouki,
P.S.- Lakhisarai, P.O.- Balgudar (Lakhisarai), District- Lakhisarai
2. Jasoda Ram @ Raso Ram S/O Late Sakal Ram R/O Village- Chowki,
P.S.- Lakhisrai, P.O.- Balgudar, Distt.- Lakhisarai
3. Rajo Ram @ Rajendra Ram S/O Late Sakal Ram R/O Village- Chouki,
P.S.- Lakhisarai, P.O.- Balgudar (Lakhisarai), District- Lakhisarai
4. Shiv Kumar Ram S/O Late Sakal Ram R/O Village- Chouki, P.S.-
Lakhisarai, P.O.- Balgudar (Lakhisarai), District- Lakhisarai
5. Chchotu Ram S/O Late Sakal Ram R/O Village- Chouki, P.S.-
Lakhisarai, P.O.- Balgudar (Lakhisarai), District- Lakhisarai
6. Hira Ram S/O Late Sakal Ram R/O Village- Chouki, P.S.- Lakhisarai,
P.O.- Balgudar (Lakhisarai), District- Lakhisarai
2 Patna High Court C.R. No.2383 of 2007 (14) dt.01-03-2013
2/4
.... .... Opposite Parties
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
14 01-03-2013Heard Mr. Rudra Deo Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners.
This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 29.9.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C.V, Munger in Civil Review Misc. No. 1 of 2005 whereby the learned Court below has been pleased to dismiss the civil review application.
Facts of the case in brief is that a title suit was filed by the father of the opposite parties late Sakal Ram giving rise to Title Suit No. 126 of 1988 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the plot bearing C.S. Plot No.728 Khata No. 125 admeasuring 1.76 acres situated in Mauza Chouki P.S.Lakhisarai which at the relevant time fell within the District of Munger now an independent district.
The suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 28.3.1992. The defendant-petitioners preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') and which was dismissed by order dated 26.3.2001 passed by learned Sub Judge-I, Lakhisarai. 3 Patna High Court C.R. No.2383 of 2007 (14) dt.01-03-2013 3/4 An appeal against the same met with the same fate when the Misc. Appeal No. 11 of 2001 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Munger vide order dated 29.7.2004. The said order was questioned before this Court in Civil Revision No. 1444 of 2004 but the civil revision application was sought to be withdrawn for filing a review application and which prayer was allowed by order dated 29.3.2005. Thereafter a Civil Review Misc. No. 1 of 2005 was filed by the petitioners which again has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.9.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C.V, Munger.
The petitioner while questioning the order passed in review application has sought to question the order passed in the miscellaneous case filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code and the impugned order passed on the Appeal.
In the circumstances that the petitioners had questioned the said orders by filing C.R. No. 1444 of 2004 but chose to withdraw the said civil revision application for filing a review application, the petitioner now cannot question the said orders on merits and is precluded from questioning the orders passed in the miscellaneous case and the appeal arising from the miscellaneous case filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code.
The order impugned in this application on the review 4 Patna High Court C.R. No.2383 of 2007 (14) dt.01-03-2013 4/4 application merely records failure of the petitioner to point out any error apparent on the face of record requiring a review.
In aforesaid view of the matter, the prayer made in this application does not warrant indulgence and this application is accordingly disposed of. The disposal of this application however, would not preclude the petitioners from taking recourse to the remedies as may be available to them under law.
(Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/-