Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2018 DAILYLAW 749 (CHH)

AMIT KUMAR SINGH v. SMT. ASHRAF BANO

REVP/60/2018 · 2026-04-12

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Shri Sanjay Agrawal

Special Leave Petitionbody2018

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Review Petition No. 60 of 2018  Amit Kumar Singh S/o Prakash Singh, Aged About 46 Years R/o A-1, Shailender Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Ashraf Bano W/o Late Sh. Mehandi Mohammed Farishta, R/o Army Welfare Housing Colony, Hyderabad District (Andhra Pradesh) 2. Murad Farishta, S/o Late Sh. Mehandi Mohammed Farishta, R/o Army Welfare Housing Colony, Hyderabad District (Andhra Pradesh) 3. Malik Mohammad Farishta, S/o Late Sh. Mehandi Mohammed Farishta, R/o Army Welfare Housing Colony, Hyderabad District (Andhra Pradesh) 4. Union Bank of India, Through Its Manager, Mahaveer Gaushala Complex, K.K. Road, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5. Satyaprakash Jhunjhunwala, S/o R.P. Jhunjhunwala, R/o MIG D-12, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : None For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : None For Respondent No. 5 : Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon , Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge Order On Board Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon , Chief Justice 15.05.2019 1. The review is sought for in respect of judgment dated 05.04.2018 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 142 of 2011. When the matter is taken up immediately after the resumption of the Court in the afternoon there was no representation and we passed over the matter. Even on the second time there is no representation from the petitioner. 2 2. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that no error apparent on the face of the record is pointed out to invoke the power of review. It is barred by limitation as well which is sought to be condoned by filing an application. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submits that petitioner has already moved to the Apex Court being aggrieved by the verdict passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 142 of 2011 but the SLP came to be dismissed and it is thereafter that the present review petition has been filed. 3. It appears that the petitioner has lost interest in the cause of action. The Review Petition as well as petition for condonation of delay stand dismissed for non prosecution. Sd/- Sd/- (P. R. Ramachandra Menon) (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Chief Justice Judge Kishore