Jharkhand High Court

Gopal Prasad Mahanty vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Ananda Sen

                                                       2025:JHHC:10825-DB



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                      Civil Review No.14 of 2025

 1. Gopal Prasad Mahanty, S/o Late Balaram Mahanty, aged about 82
 years;
 2. Gautam Mahanty, S/o Gopal Prasad Mahanty, aged about 57 years;
 3. Rupali Mahanty, D/o Gopal Prasad Mahanty, aged about 52 years;
 All R/o Sector 4F 6110, Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS-Sector-IV, Bokaro
 Steel City, District-Bokaro
                               ....... ...      Petitioners/Appellants
                               Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, PO & PS Sector-IV, Bokaro
Steel City, District-Bokaro
3. G.P.A Kujur, S/o Not Known, age, Not known, working as Deputy
Development Commissioner, Bokaro, PO & PS-Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel
City, District-Bokaro
                             ........ Opposite Parties/Respondents

                               -------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

-------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mayank Mohit Sinha, Advocate For the OP-State : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III

-------

th Order No.2/Dated: 8 April, 2025

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 598 days in filing Civil Review No.14 of 2025.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that sufficient cause has been shown in the instant interlocutory application by showing the pendency of the proceeding by way of C.M.P No.511 of 2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 05.12.2024 by granting liberty to the petitioners to prefer review petition seeking review of the order dated 29.03.2023 passed in L.P.A No.270 of 2021.

3. It has been contended that thereafter the instant review petition being Civil Review No.14 of 2025 has been filed on 17.12.2024.

4. Further reason has been assigned that on 05.12.2024 the petitioners have made a representation before the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee to appoint a counsel to prefer the Civil Review petition before the High Court. The Jharkhand High Court Legal 2025:JHHC:10825-DB

Services Committee vide its letter dated 13.12.2024 entrusted the matter to its empaneled counsel who is appearing in the instant review petition.

5. It has been submitted that the delay has been caused due to the aforesaid reason and, as such, delay of 598 days in filing the instant review petition being Civil Review No.14 of 2025 has been sought to be condoned.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the State is fair enough to submit that he is not opposing the delay condoning application, rather he has submitted that the instant review petition may be decided on its own merit so far the issue as available in the instant review petition is concerned.

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the issue on condonation of delay.

8. The question of sufficient cause has been taken into consideration by this Court and on consideration of explanation furnished in paragraph nos.3 and 4 to the delay condonation application, we are of the view that the sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing Civil Review No.14 of 2025.

9. Accordingly, the delay of 598 days in filing Civil Review No.14 of 2025 is condoned and the instant interlocutory application being I.A No.1069 of 2025 stands allowed.

10. This is an assigned matter by virtue of the order dated 03.04.2025 passed on the administrative side by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand.

11. Mr. Mayank Mohit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the outset, has sought for leave of this Court to make necessary correction in the provision of law under which the present review petition being Civil Review No.14 of 2025 has been filed.

12. Leave, as prayed for, is granted.

13. Let necessary correction be done in the memo of review petition during course of the day.

14. The present review petition being Civil Review No.14 of 2025 has been filed for modification of the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A No.270 of 2021.

2025:JHHC:10825-DB

15. The prayer has been made in the present review petition for a direction upon the State Authority to disburse the interest over the delayed payment and return of the Security Deposit to the tune of Rs.10,000/- with further interest and adequate compensation.

16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in course of argument has submitted that the direction as has been passed by this Court by way of an order dated 29.03.2023 passed in L.P.A No.270 of 2021 has already been complied with so far as the substantial amount as per the prayer made therein is concerned. The same has been complied after delay of about two years. As such, the petitioners claim their entitlement by compensating them by directing the State Authority to disburse the interest over the delayed payment from the date of the order passed by this Court in L.P.A No.270 of 2021, i.e., from 29.03.2023 till the date of disbursal of the said amount along with the return of Security Deposit to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and adequate compensation.

17. It is evident from the said argument and the pleadings made in the review petition that the present review petition has been filed for aforesaid direction, which according to our considered view, is a fresh cause of action whether it is the amount of interest to be paid over the delayed payment or the return of the amount of Security Deposit to the tune of Rs.10,000/- or the amount of compensation is concerned.

18. The issue afresh cannot be subject matter of review as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr., reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362, 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.

2025:JHHC:10825-DB

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.--"

19. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in the aforesaid pretext, after some argument, has submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw the present civil review petition with a liberty to ventilate the aforesaid grievance by approaching the appropriate Forum.

20. There is no opposition by the learned State counsel to this prayer.

21. Accordingly, the present review petition being Civil Review No.14 of 2025 stands dismissed as withdrawn, however, with liberty being reserved to the petitioners to ventilate their grievance before the appropriate Forum.