Shri Gurbachan Singh vs Administrator
2022 Latest Caselaw 4403 HP

                                                       .
       IN   THE    HIGH   COURT OF HIMACHAL             PRADESH,





                             SHIMLA

                   ON THE 13th DAY OF JUNE, 2022





                              BEFORE
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

                   REVIEW PETITION No.236 of 2022

    Between:

    AKASHDEEP SINGH SON OF

    SHRI GURBACHAN SINGH,


    RESIDENT    OF    HOUSE
    NO.148/12,  RAM   NAGAR,
    MANDI    TOWN,  DISTRICT
    MANDI, H.P.
                                   ....PETITIONER/APPELLANT.



    (BY. MR. R.L.      CHAUDHARY    AND      MR.       H.R.      SIDHU,
    ADVOCATES )




    AND





    1. ADMINISTRATOR, THE
    MANDI       URBAN     CO­





    OPERATIVE     BANK   LTD.,
    MANDI, H.P. THROUGH ITS
    MANAGER.
    2. MANJEET SINGH SON OF
    LATE SHRI LAL SINGH,
    RESIDENT      OF   HOUSE
    NO.110/12, RAM NAGAR,
    MANDI   TOWN,    DISTRICT
    MANDI, H.P.
    3. KARAN DEEP SINGH SON
    OF SHRI MANJEET SINGH,
    RESIDENT      OF   HOUSE
    NO.110/12, RAM NAGAR,




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2022 20:02:44 :::CIS
                                        2




                                                               .
    MANDI   TOWN,  DISTRICT





    MANDI, H.P.
    4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR
    MANDI, DISTRICT MANDI,





    H.P.
                                                         ....RESPONDENTS.

    (BY. MR. SUMESH RAJ, MR. DINESH THAKUR, MR. SANJEEV





    SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL, WITH MR.
    MANOJ BAGGA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR
    RESPONDENT NO.4.)
    (MR. H.S. RANGRA, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2
    AND 3).


    (NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)


    Whether approved for reporting?1 No



           This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the




    following:

                 ORDER

CMP No.7031 of 2022

By way of this application, a prayer has been made by

the applicant for condonation of delay in re­filing the Review

Petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, this

application is allowed, as prayed for, and delay in re­filing the

Review Petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

.

Review Petition No.236 of 2021

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this

Court finds that there is no error apparent on the face of the record,

calling for review of the judgment. The contention, which has been

raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to findings

returned in Para­12 of the judgment, is no ground for reviewing the

judgment. In case, petitioner was aggrieved by the findings so

returned, then the appropriate course would have been to assail the

same, but review thereof cannot be sought on the grounds raised in

the petition.

2. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed, so also the

pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge June 13, 2022 (Rishi)