Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 705 (PAT)

Dhirendra Kumar Yadav v. B. N. Mandal University

2007-04-08

J.N.SINGH, NARAYAN ROY

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent University upon I.A. No. 2373 of 2007, which has been filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. It appears that this review application was filed after more than three years of passing of the order in L.P.A. No. 406 of 2003. 3. We have perused the limitation petition. We do not find any explanation for the delay of three years two months in filing the review application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the University authorities virtually have played fraud by filing a false affidavit giving wrong information to the Court about payment of legal dues. No averment, whatsoever, has been made as to under what circumstances the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the review application in time and the delay has not been explained in any manner to satisfy the Court to condone the delay in filing the review application. 5. It appears from the limitation petition itself that the writ application filed by the petitioner was allowed by an order of this Court, which, however, was set aside in L.P.A. No. 406 of 2006 vide order dated 8.9.2003. The petitioner thereafter went to Apex Court against the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 47 of 2004, which was dismissed in limine on 16.1.2004. The petitioner thereafter filed a contempt application before this Court in M.J.C. No. 1805 of 2005. The contempt application aforesaid is said to be still pending. 6. It is not the case that the petitioner had no knowledge about the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal and, therefore, he could not file review application in time, rather the petitioner was aware of the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal and as it was passed in his presence he challenged the aforesaid order before the Apex Court, which was dismissed on 16.1.2004 itself. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any ground to condone the delay of three years two months in filing the limitation petition. 8. The limitation petition is, accordingly, dismissed and consequently thereof the review application is also dismissed as barred by limitation.