Patna High Court
Most. Shakuntala Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 6 March, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.396 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4341 of 2011
======================================================
Most. Shakuntala Devi, Wife of Late Krishnadeo Pandit, Resident of Village-
Rahta East, P.O.-Pirmokam, P.S.-Falka, District-Katihar.
... ... Appellant.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea.
3. The Collector, Katihar.
4. The Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Katihar.
5. Jangali Paswan, Son of Late Maharaj Paswan, Resident of Village-Rahta
West Tola, P.O.-Pirmokam, P.S.-Falka, District-katihar.
... ... Respondents.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, AC to AAG-12.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 06-03-2025
I.A. No.01 of 2021:
Heard I.A. No.01 of 2021.
2. Appellant had a cause of action in filing L.P.A.
No.396 of 2021 on 24.09.2015 in the light of the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 25.08.2015 passed in C.W.J.C.
No.4341 of 2011, whereas L.P.A. No.396 of 2021 has been
presented in the year 2021. The reasons for condonation of
delay of about four years and few months are stated in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.396 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
2/4
paragraphs-2 to 9 of I.A. No.01 of 2021. Paragraphs-2 to 9 of
I.A. No.01 of 2021 are read as under:
"2. That the Appellant has not moved
before this Hon'ble court on an earlier occasion in
this matter by way of an Interlocutory Application.
3. That as a matter of fact the Appellant
being a below and on illiterate Lady, After filing of
the connected writ petition she was in complete
darkness, No information was being given to her
regarding the progress of the case.
4. That the Appellant-Petitioner was not
even informed about the dismiss as of the
connected writ petition, on 25.08.2015.
5. That about a year ago she asked one of
her relatives to enquire about status of the case.
Then she was informed that the connected writ
petition has been dismissed.
6. That just after that the petitioner-
Appellant suffered paralytic stroke and she was not
able to move on her own for a long time. She
remained under treatment of the doctors of Purnea.
7. That after being able to move out she
Patna High Court L.P.A No.396 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
3/4
came to Patna and contacted her lawyer, she
handed over the file to his present Advocate to
examine the matter. She was advised to move in
the Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated
25.08.20115.
8
. That the Memo of Appeal was preferred,
drafted and filed on 30.06.2021.
9. That it is a fact that some delay has
occurred in filing the Appeal but the circumstances
were beyond the control of the Appellant. That
there are good question of Law and fact involved in
this Appeal which deserves to be adjudicated by the
Hon'ble Court."
3. Reading of the aforementioned reasoning, it is not
sufficient cause has been shown so as to condone enormous
delay of about 4 years and few months. Therefore, I.A. No.01
of 2021 for condonation of delay in filing L.P.A. No.396 of
2021 stands dismissed in the light of the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh Versus Ramkumar Choudhary decided in SLP (C)
Diary No.48636 of 2024 on 29.11.2024 read with H.
Guruswamy and Others Versus A. Krishnalah, reported in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.396 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
2025 SCC OnLine SC 54.
L.P.A. No.396 of 2021:
4. Resultantly, the present L.P.A. No.396 of 2021 stands
dismissed.
5. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
P.S./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 08.03.2025.
Transmission Date NA
