Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ravi S.Dhavan, J.
Braj Ballabh Kumar @ Braj Ballabh Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
M.J.C. No. 2518 of 2003 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 19, 2004
Court Order - Revision Restoration - The court recalled the order dismissing the revision for default and restored it to its original number. The court emphasized the personal nature of the issues between the parties and the obstruction caused by the revision to the proceedings of the suit. The court also highlighted the violation of a status quo order and the need for the parties to resolve their disputes amicably.
Fact of the Case:
The court recalled the order dismissing the revision for default and restored it to its original number. The issues between the parties were personal and related to a property dispute. The violation of a status quo order and the obstruction caused by the revision to the proceedings of the suit were noted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issues between the parties were personal and related to a property dispute. It emphasized the need for the parties to resolve their disputes amicably and highlighted the violation of a status quo order. The court also noted that the pendency of the revision was obstructing the proceedings of the suit.
Issues: The personal nature of the issues between the parties, the violation of a status quo order, and the obstruction caused by the revision to the proceedings of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the parties to resolve their disputes amicably and highlighted the violation of a status quo order. It also noted that the pendency of the revision was obstructing the proceedings of the suit.
Final Decision: The court ordered the petitioners to pay the costs within one month and dismissed the case.
1. The order dismissing the revision for default on 28 November 2003 is recalled.
2. The revision is restored to its original number.
3. The petitioners have filed the revision. The petitioner no.1 submits in person.
4. The issues between the petitioners and the contesting respondents are personal between them regarding a property over which both sides are at loggerheads. A status quo order had been passed. The trial court has recorded that the order of the court imposing status quo was violated, thus, cost of Rs. 150 was ordered on the defendants, which if not paid also rendered them liable to civil prison. The pendency of this revision is obstructing with the proceedings of the suit. Already, it is contended by the petitioner submitting in person that against an exparte decree, he has filed a miscellaneous appeal. On the miscellaneous appeal, this court cannot make any comment because that record is before another division of the court.
5. Fathers of the plaintiffs and the defendants were brothers. They ought to be resolving their disputes between them failing which they must join the proceeding in court. But unfortunately things have come down to this that while they are first cousins, the litigation between them has also seen controversy of violation of an injunction..
6. While the court can only interfere to the extent that the petitioners as defendants may not see prison, but this does not mean that they will not pay costs.
7. The costs shall be paid by the petitioners within one month from today as ordered by the court.
8. Dismissed.
9. A copy of this order be sent by the Registrar General to the trial Court.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
