IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 150 of 2025

1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Engineer, Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project, Water Resources Department, Icha-Galudih Complex, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, Saraikela-Kharsawan

2. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Water Resources Department, Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project, Galudih, East Singhbhum ….. Petitioners Versus M/S R.K. Construction Private Limited, Patna (Bihar), through its Director, Mr. Siraj Ahmed ….. Respondent -----

CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR -----

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, A.A.G.-III For the Respondent: Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate -----

02/16.12.2025

1. This civil review is directed against the order passed on 25.08.2025 in C.M.P. No. 397 of 2025 whereby this Court had directed the learned Executing Court to dispose of the execution petition filed by the respondent-decree holder as expeditiously as possible and in any event, by 30.11.2025. This direction was issued keeping in view the mandate of law as expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Ors. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418, M/s. Chopra Fabricators and Manufacturers Private Limited Vs. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. and Anr., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 534 and the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Periyammal (Dead) through Lrs. and Others Vs. V. Rajamani and Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507

2. It is thus evident from the impugned order that this Court did not even remotely touch upon the merits of the case and simply issued the directions to the learned Executing Court for concluding the proceedings expeditiously in terms of the mandate laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which directions are not only binding upon this Court, but also upon the parties keeping in view the provisions as contained under Article

141 of the Constitution of India.

3. Clearly, this civil review has been filed by the State that too questioning the merits of the case with the sole intention and purpose to stall the proceedings before the learned Executing Court, which cannot be permitted in light of the settled law.

4. We are thus of the considered view that the present civil review has been filed with oblique motive and such petitions cannot be encouraged.

5. The petitioners have acted irresponsibly though they were expected to litigate within expected judicial norms. The petitioners like belligerent litigants could not resist the temptation of litigation and have fought their legal battle as if it was a war. The battle otherwise is “uneven” as on one side is a mighty State whereas on the other side is a Company.

6. In such a case, one is bound to recall to mind the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilbagh Rai Jerry vs. Union of India, AIR

1974 SC 130, wherein it was observed as under:-

“25. I feel impelled to make a few observations not on the merits but on governmental disposition to litigation, the present case being symptomatic of a serious deficiency. In this country the State is the largest litigant to-day and the huge expenditure involved make a big draft on the public exchequer. In the contest of expanding dimensions of State activity and responsibility, is it unfair to expect finer sense and sensibility in its litigation policy, the absence of which, in the present case, has led the Railway callously and cantankerously to resist an action by its own employee a small man, by urging a mere technical plea which has been pursued right up to the summit court here and has been negatived in the judgment just pronounced. Instances of this type are legion as is evidenced by the fact that the Law Commission of India in a recent report on amendments to the Civil Procedure Code has suggested the deletion of Section 80, finding that wholesome provision hardly ever utilised by Government, and has gone further t