[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Kumar Krishnanand Bhagat vs The Union Of India And Others ... ... ... ... on 6 December, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No. 65 of 2023
Kumar Krishnanand Bhagat ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and others ... ... ... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties: Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I.
Mr. Ravi Prakash, C.G.C.
Ms. Shreya Shukla, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
---------
04 /Dated: 06.12.2025
1. The instant review petition was filed on 24.08.2023 against the order
dated 03.01.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2940 of 2017 by a Division Bench
of this Court and apparently has been filed beyond the period of 30 days
as prescribed under Article 124 of the Limitation Act 1963 given the fact
that the certified copy was applied on 13.04.2023 and prepared and
delivered on 29.04.2023. However, the moot question is whether the
provision of Limitation Act apply to a review arising out of a judgment
rendered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The Registry of this Court has not raised the question of limitation on
the ground that the question of limitation does not arise which observation
ostensibly flows out of an order dated 02.09.1997 passed by Patna High
Court in Civil Review No. 51 of 1997(R) titled State of Bihar and others
Vs. Sunil Jain wherein it has been observed as under:
"Heard Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Learned Govt. Advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad on behalf of the opposite
party on the limitation petition.
At the very outset, drawing my attention to the order dated
8.9.95 passed by the Division Bench in Civil Review No. 25/95R
Mr. Agrawal submits that bar of limitation for filing an application for
review of the judgment/order passed under Article 226 of the
Constitution is not applicable.
In support of his contention he has filed a photocopy of the
order from a perusal of which it appears that the Division Bench,
relying on the decision of the Gauhati High Court reported in AIR
1995, Gauhati, 82 has held that the provisions of Limitation Act is
not applicable in this matter.
Under this circumstance, even though limitation application
has been filed by way of abandoned caustion, I hold, agreeing with
the Division Bench, that the provisions of Limitation Act are not
applicable in this case. Delay in filing this review application is,
accordingly, condoned.
In this connection I direct the stamp reporter to get the said
order immediately for ready reference in other cases of alike
nature."
3. The issue of applicability of Limitation Act more particularly Article
124 thereof to a petition seeking review of a judgment rendered under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India needs to be authorizedly decided
more particularly in light of the following judgments:
(i) AIR 1995 Gauhati 82, (Kanak Chandra Sharma Vs. Board of
Secondary Education, Assam, Guwahati and others.)
(ii) AIR 1999 Calcutta 29 Full Bench, (Ratanlal Nahata and etc.
Vs. Nandita Bose and etc.)
(iii) AIR 1997 Madhya Pradesh 74, (State of M.P. and others Vs.
G.L. Patel and Company and others)
(iv) 2016 SCC Online All. 3678, (Mohd. Jahan Begum and
another Vs. Board of Revenue and others)
(v) (2003) 1 GLR 397 (DB), (Ahmedabad Electricity Company Vs.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation)
(vi) 2008 1 CHN 442, (Maruti Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Life
Insurance Corporation of India)
4. List on 15.01.2026.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
06.12.2025
VK/Pramanik
