2025:JHHC:28585 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No.76 of 2025 ------ 1. Bhikhram Bhagat, Aged about 50 years, Son of Sri, Budhua Bhagat, 2. Tinku Oraon, Aged about 37 years, Son of Sri Balku Oraon, 3. Arun Kumar Bhagat, Aged about 62 years, Son of Late Dharam Das Bhagat, 4. Gandu Oraon, Aged about 58 years, Son of Late Hariya Oraon, 5. Parmeshwar Oraon, Aged about 55 years, Son of Late Lalu Bhagat, 6. Sunil Kumar Oraon, Aged about 53 years, Son of Sri Sudhram Tirkey, All residents of Village: Harmu, P.O. & P.S.: Sukhdeonagar, District: Ranchi. …. Petitioners/Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Land Reform & Revenue, Govt. of Jharkhand, At: Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.: Dhurwa, P.S.: Jagarnathpur, District: Ranchi. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O., P.S., & District: Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. & District: Ranchi. 4. Bisu Oraon, Son of Late Mithua Oraon, Resident of Village: Nayatoli, P.O.: Simaliya, P.S.: Ratu, District: Ranchi. .... .... Respondents/ Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Subhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate Ms. Mrinalini Adela Tete, Advocate Ms. Preeti Hembrom, Advocate Ms. Singi Sharon Demta, Advocate Mr. Elwin Nishant Tirkey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-I 2025:JHHC:28585 2 ------ Order No.02/Dated 17th September, 2025 Prayer 1. The instant review petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking review of the judgment dated 19th August, 2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.1265 of 2017. Facts 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition as has been inserted in this review petition, read as under: - (i) It is the case of the review petitioners that the respondent No.4, Bisu Oraon, who is the son of granddaughter of khatiyani raiyat filed an application on 01.06.2010 before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for restoration of the land bearing R.S. Khata No.53 of Plot No.71, area 0.80 acres against the petitioner no.1 and 2 which was registered as SAR Case No.55/2010-11, in which, the Special Officer, SAR vide order dated 01.02.2011 has passed order of restoration in favour of respondent no.4 but the said proceeding has been concluded without appreciating the fact that the respondent No.4 is not the descendant of Khatiyani Raiyat Turi Oraon rather he is the son of Bagi Orain, a daughter of Bhowka Oraon, Bhanka Oraon who was the son of the khatiyani raiyat Turi Oraon and according to the customary law of Oraon Community female member has got no right on her father’s property and as such, said Bisu Oraon has got no locus standi to file a case under Section 71A of the Chota Nagapur 2025:JHHC:28585 3 Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1908) but unfortunately the learned lower court of Special Officer, SAR, Ranchi has passed order of restoration in favour of such petitioner/respondent no.4 who has no locus standi and also the Special officer, SAR, Ranchi has not given opportunity to the petitioner no.1 and 2 and passed the order of restoration on 01.02.2011. (ii) It is the further case of the review petitioners that the petitioner nos.3 to 6 having no knowledge about the SAR Case No.55/2010-11 and also, they have not been impleaded as party in the case before the Special Officer under SAR, Ranchi. (iii) The Opposite Party in the SAR Case No.55/2010-11 and the petitioner no.3 to 6, being aggrieved with the order of the Special Officer, SAR, Ranchi, filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Ranchi vide SAR Appeal No.05R15/11-12 for setting aside the order passed by the Special Officer under SAR, Ranchi, but the appellate authority without considering the facts and circumstances, has dismissed the appeal and the order of Special Officer, SAR, Ranchi has been affirmed vide order dated 30.09.2011. (iv) The review petitioners again being aggrieved with the order passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in SAR Appeal No.05R15/11-12, has preferred a SAR revision being SAR Revision Case No.01/2012-13 before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi but the same has also been 2025:JHHC:28585 4 dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2016 by confirming the order passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi as also the Special Officer, SAR, Ranchi, against which, the said writ petition has been filed. But the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1265 of 2017 has been dismissed taking into consideration the factual as also the legal aspect, vide order dated 19.08.2019. The said order is under challenge in this review petition. Submissions of the learned counsel for the review petitioners 3. Mr. Subhashis Rasik Soren, learned counsel for the review petitioners has taken the following grounds, which have not been appreciated in the order impugned: - (i) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the review petitioners that the fact about possession over the land in question has not been appreciated in the impugned order, which was on the strength of Sada Sale. (ii) The petitioners have produced Jamabandi Receipt, Chowkidari Receipt, which is not the conclusive proof of transfer but the factum of the possession of the petitioners can be ascertained by such documents, which has also not been appreciated by this Court while passing the order impugned. (iii) The respondent no.4, being the son of the grand-daughter of the recorded tenant/raiyat of the land in question has not locus standi to file an application for restoration of the land 2025:JHHC:28585 5 under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act. (iv) The fact about the original petition for restoration before the SAR Court that only petitioner nos.1 and 2 were impleaded as party, which goes to show that the respondent no.4 was not at all aware that who are the persons, said to be in possession of the land, has also not been appreciated. (v) It has been submitted that if the applicant himself is not aware about the possession of the other persons over the land in question, no relief could have been granted to him. (vi) It has also been contended that the restoration of the land sought for after 62 years, is barred by limitation, which has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court as also by this Court. (vii) It has been contended that this Court could have remanded the matter back before the original court for allowing the petitioner nos.1 and 2 for filing their objections, as the SAR Officer has decided the case ex-parte, without waiting for reply to be filed by petitioner nos.1 and 2. 4. Learned counsel for the review petitioners, based upon the aforementioned grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned passed by this Court needs to be reviewed. Submissions of the learned counsel for the Respondent- State 5. While, on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the ground which has been 2025:JHHC:28585 6 agitated seeking review of the judgment passed by this Court cannot be said to be a cogent ground for review of the said order, rather, in the garb of filing of instant review, based upon the ground as referred hereinabove, the writ petitioners has filed appeal against the judgment sought to be reviewed, which is not permissible. 6. It has been contended that the power of review can only be exercised on the ground of error apparent on the face of record or if the relevant document could not have been brought on record in spite of all due diligence but that is not the eventuality as available in the facts and circumstances of the case basing upon the grounds seeking for review, hence, the instant review petition is fit to be dismissed. Analysis 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the grounds, based upon which, the instant review petition has been filed. 8. This Court, before proceeding to examine the grounds said to be a cogent ground to review the judgment passed by this Court, needs to refer herein the underlying principle under which the power of review is to be exercised by the Court of Law. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors., [AIR 1954 SC 526], particularly, at paragraph-32 has observed as under: 2025:JHHC:28585 7 “32. Before going into the merits of the case it is as well to bear in mind the scope of the application for review which has given rise to the present appeal. It is needless to emphasis that the scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. Under the provisions in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order XL VII, Rule I of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein. It may allow a review on three specified, grounds, namely (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (iii) for any other sufficient reason.” 10. Likewise, in the case of Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon Vrs. Union of India (1980) Supp. SCC 562, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the Court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are as under: “12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib 1975 1 SCC 674 this Court observed: ‘A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. ….. The present 2025:JHHC:28585 8 stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.” 11. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 has observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized as under: “20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important0 matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasiusto mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.,. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:— (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. 2025:JHHC:28585 9 (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 12. It is evident from the aforesaid judgments that the power of review is to be exercised if there is any error occurred on the face of the order or the factual aspect could not have been brought to the notice of this Court in spite of the due diligence having been taken in the matter of making available the factual aspect of the relevant documents. 13. The position of law is well settled, as would appear from the reference of the judgments made hereinabove that the review of the judgment can only be made if the new fact has come which could not have been brought to the notice of the Court in spite of the due diligence, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose (supra). 14. It is evident that while power of review may be inherent in the High Court to review its own order passed in a writ petition, the same has to be exercised on well-recognised and established grounds on which judicial orders are reviewed. For example, the power may be exercised 2025:JHHC:28585 10 on the discovery of some new and important matter or evidence which was not within the knowledge of the parties seeking review despite due exercise of diligence when the order was made. 15. Review can also be sought when the order discloses some error apparent on the face of record or on grounds analogous thereto. These are all grounds which find mention in various judicial pronouncements right from the earliest time as well as in the Rules of Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code as permissible grounds of review. 16. The term “mistake or error apparent” by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 17. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ‘reheard and corrected’. 2025:JHHC:28585 11 18. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’. 19. Further, the law is well settled that a review petition, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”, as has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPCit is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.” 20. Similarly, in S. Murali Sundaram Versus Jothibai Kannan and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “15. While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the 2025:JHHC:28585 12 review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long- drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.” 2025:JHHC:28585 13 21. In the recent judgment in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vrs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr., reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362, the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C., has been laid down the proposition to entertain the review, as has been held at paragraph-16.1 to 16.7, which reads as under:- “16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record e justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.—" 22. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court recently in the case of Malleeswari Versus K. Suguna and Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, wherein, at paragraphs-15 and 17, it has been held as under: - 2025:JHHC:28585 14 “15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. The power of review is different from appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions: 15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. 15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. 15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. 15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power. 15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors. 17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows: 17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was 2025:JHHC:28585 15 passed. 17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record.8 Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision.9 An error which has to be established by a long- drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. 17.3 Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason’ means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories.” 23. Adverting to the ground as has been taken for the purpose of seeking review, this Court has considered the finding recorded in the judgments sought to be reviewed. 24. So far as the ground nos.(i) & (ii), which pertain to factum of possession over the land in question and non-appreciation of the Jamabandi Receipt, Chowkidari Receipt which even though has been admitted to be not conclusive proof of transfer but the factum of possession of the petitioners can be ascertained. This Court has found from the impugned judgment that the issue of factum of possession has been taken into consideration as under paragraph-11, wherein, the revisional authority has given specific finding that the petitioners have failed to prove the factum of possession over the land in question on the strength of said Sada Sale Deed through cogent evidences. Although, the petitioners have admitted that the Jamabandi Receipt, Chowkidari Receipt etc. are not the conclusive proof of transfer but even then, the same has been taken as a ground to review. Even in spite of the fact that the conclusive finding has been 2025:JHHC:28585 16 recorded by the revisional authority which has been declined to be interfered with by this Court by making reference of scope of issuance of Writ of Certiorari. 25. The ground no.(iii) has been taken that the respondent no.4, being the son of the grand-daughter of the recorded tenant/raiyat of the land in question has no locus standi to file an application for restoration of the land under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act. This ground has also been taken into consideration by the revisional authority and while considering the same, the finding which has been arrived at on the issue of locus to file an application for restoration of the land under Section 71A by the respondent no.4, namely, Bisu Oraon, the same has been affirmed by the revisional authority which has been declined to be interfered with by issuance of Writ of Certiorari. 26. So far as the ground nos.(iv) & (v) are concerned, i.e., the original petition for restoration before the SAR Court, only petitioner nos.1 and 2 were impleaded as party and thereby, the respondent no.4 was not at all aware that who are the persons, who were in the possession of the land. So far as these grounds are concerned, the same have also been taken into consideration by the revisional authority as per the reference thereof made at paragraph-10 wherein, the impleadment of petitioner nos.3 to 6 has been rejected since they have failed to produce any cogent evidence even when directed. They have again filed a petition on 05.08.2011 for recall of the 2025:JHHC:28585 17 order dated 22.07.2011 but again no cogent evidences/documents have been filed for review of the order passed on 22.07.2011. 27. The ground therefore is that consciously the petitioner nos.3 to 6 have not been impleaded as party therefore is nothing but a mis- leading ground, since, even though, the petitioner nos.3 to 6 have not been impleaded but they have sought to be impleaded by filing an application but were rejected twice as per the reference made at paragraph-10 of the impugned judgment, for ready reference, paragraph-10 of the impugned judgment is being quoted as under:- “10. It is evident from the aforesaid order that Arun Kumar Bhagat, Gandu Oraon, Parmeshwar Oraon and Sunil Kumar Oraon the petitioner nos.3 to 6 have filed an application for impleadment as party to the proceeding but since they have failed to produce any cogent evidence even when directed, therefore, their intervention application has been rejected vide order dated 22.07.2011. They have again filed a petition on 05.08.2011 for recall of order dated 22.07.2011 but again no cogent evidences/documents have been filed for review of the order passed on 22.07.2011and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.” 28. So far as the ground taken on the issue of limitation as per ground no.(vi) is concerned, this Court has taken into consideration that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 have never raised the issue about the applicability of customary law, Sada Sale Deed and the period of limitation and as such, the Court has given a finding that if these issues have not been raised before the competent authority in course of adjudication of the issue and for the first time, the same has been agitated by the petitioner 2025:JHHC:28585 18 nos.3 to 6 before the revisional authority, which cannot be considered, for ready reference, paragraph-17 of the impugned judgment is being referred as under:- “17. The petitioner no.1 and 2 has never raised the issue about the applicability of customary law, sada sale deed and the period of limitation and therefore, in the aforesaid background if such factual as well as legal aspect if not raised before the competent authorities in course of the adjudication of issue and for the first time the same has been agitated by the petitioner no.3 to 6 before the revisional authority can it be considered. It is the settled position of law that if the point available and not raised by the parties in course of its adjudication they will be precluded from raising the factual aspect, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Deepak Tandon and Anr. Vrs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 537, whereby and whereunder, it has been laid down that if plea is not taken in the pleading by parties and no issue as such and therefore, no finding recorded, cannot be allowed to raise it before third court.” 29. So far as the ground no.(vii) is concerned, the issue of remand has been raised but the question is that once the quasi-judicial functionary at three stages has appreciated the factual aspect, then, in absence of any perversity in finding that too while exercising the power of review, if the ground of review is not available, it will not be proper for the Court to recall the order and remit the matter before the authority. 30. The law as has been referred hereinabove that the power of review can only be exercised if there is error apparent on the face of the order or any document said to be not brought on record in spite of due diligence, hence, no ground is said to be 2025:JHHC:28585 19 available to review the impugned judgment dated 19.08.2019 passed by this Court. 31. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussions, is of the view that the grounds so raised in the instant review petition seeking review of the impugned judgment, cannot be said to be the cogent ground, hence, the instant review petition deserves to be dismissed. 32. In the result, the instant review petition fails and is, dismissed. 33. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 17th September, 2025 Rohit/-A.F.R.