IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
S. KUMAR, J.
(17.10.2019)
Civil Revision No. 1959 of 2009
Deena Nath Seth & Ors. : Petitioners
Vs.
Md. Nasim Rayeem @ Md. Nasim
Raine & Ors. : Respondents
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 115 – Revision – In spite of prayer for withdrawal of review petition, the learned court below decided the review petition and reviewed the order – Once the petition for withdrawal of review petition was filed, there was no occasion for the trial court to pass any order except to permit the defendant – Petitioner to withdraw his review petition or if the learned court below refused permission to withdraw review petition it ought to have given sufficient reasons for not allowing to withdraw the same – Once the prayer to withdraw the review petition was made by the defendant – Petitioner, the court had no option but to pass order of withdrawal of the review petition – As such, the order as impugned is without jurisdiction and accordingly set aside. (Para 4)
S. KUMAR, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order dated 17.08.2009 passed by learned Munsif/Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhabhua, in Review Petition No. 1 of 2009 arising out of judgment and decree dated 12.06.2009 and 03.07.2009 in Title Suit No. 44 of 2006, which was filed by plaintiff-Opposite party for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and also for declaration that the disputed wall between the plaintiffs and defendants and part of which was damaged by the defendants be restored at the expense of defendants and further to grant damage of Rs. 1,000/-. The operative part of the order reads as follows:—
"That suit be & same is decreed partly on contest with cost with the direction that defendant shall construct & restore the suit wall in its original status at this own cost in the presence of Court Officer & plaintiff both. At present there is no finding on point title with respect to suit wall."
3. Thereafter defendant-petitioner filed a review petition for review of the order, however, subsequently he filed a petition to withdraw the review petition for the reason that the plaintiff and defendants both have preferred appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2009, which is pending for adjudication before the Appellate Court, however, in spite of prayer for withdrawal of said review petition, the learned court below has decided the review petition and reviewed the order as impugned in this revision petition.
4. Once the petition for withdrawal of review petition was filed by the defendant-petitioner there was no occasion for the trial court to pass any order except to permit the defendant-petitioner to withdraw his review petition or if the learned court below refused permission to withdraw review petition it ought to have given sufficient reasons for not allowing the defendant-petitioner to withdraw the review petition. However, the court below heard and passed order on review petition beyond the ambit and scope of review jurisdiction against which present revision petition has been filed. Once the prayer to withdraw the review petition was made by the defendant-petitioner, the court had no option but to pass order of withdrawal of the review petition, as such the order as impugned was without jurisdiction and is accordingly, set aside.
The civil revision petition is allowed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.