Patna High Court
Prabhash Kumar vs Anupma Kumari on 14 May, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.259 of 2024
In
Miscellaneous Appeal No.113 of 2022
======================================================
Prabhash Kumar S/o Late Someshwar Lal Resident of Flat No.- 613/B, Lotus
Apartment, Road No.- 1 F, New Patliputra Colony, P.S.- Patliputra, District-
Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Anupma Kumari W/o Sri Prabhash Kumar, D/o Late Binod Kumar Karn
Resident of H/O No.- 12, Road No.- 10, East Patel Nagar, P.S.- Shastrinagar,
District- Patna, At present resident of Flat No.- 102, Kailash Enclave,
Professor Colony, P.S.- Shastrinagar, District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, in person
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY)
Date : 14-05-2025
The present Civil Review petition is filed for
reviewing judgment dated 17.05.2024 passed in Misc. Appeal
No. 113 of 2022.
2. Grievance of the petitioner-Prabhash Kumar,
who appeared in person in the Court, is that this Court had given
time line of six months to dispose of Matrimonial Case No. 481
of 2011 from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the
judgment. It has been submitted that time frame of six months is
in contravention of the judgment passed by the Constitutional
Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Petitioner has
emphasized that Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course,
should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the
disposal of cases pending before any other Courts and
Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time-bound
disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. Petitioner
has submitted that the issue of prioritizing the disposal of cases
should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts
where the cases are pending.
3. The present review petition is related with
M.A. No. 113 of 2022 arising out of Matrimonial Case No. 481
of 2011 and matter is remitted back by this Court to the learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna to decide the
counter claim alogwith issues arising in present divorce petition,
on its own merit in accordance with law within a period of six
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the
judgment, after giving ample opportunity of adducing evidence
and hearing to the respective parties and the parties were also
directed to co-operate in disposal of Matrimonial Case No. 481
of 2011.
4. In the present case, the marriage between the
parties was solemnized on 09.07.2010 according to Hindu Rites
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
and Customs and by virtue of judgment dated 25.02.2022 and
decree dated 26.02.2022 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 481 of
2011 marriage between both the parties has been dissolved.
From the date of marriage to the date of its dissolution, more
than ten years have already elapsed and now, from the date of
judgment and decree of divorce to till date, three years have
elapsed. This court has remitted the matter to the concerned
Family Court after assessing the best interest of the litigant and
both parties have lost near about 15 years in litigation and up till
now, the case has not been finally decided. In matrimonial
cases, relation between husband and wife are always at stake
and if amicable settlement does not take place, then in that
circumstance, parties valuable life time would defeat and it
cannot revive, therefore, matter is to be heard expeditiously so
that party could lead remaining part of the life without litigation.
In the present case, both parties have lost their life nearly about
15 years in litigation and very purpose for establishment of
Family Court is to promote conciliation and to secure speedy
settlement of dispute related to marriage and family affairs and
for the matter connected with and keeping in view that both
parties have lost their precious time in litigation the dispute
between the parties should not linger for many years rather in
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
the interest of both parties it should be decided within time
frame, which is suited according to the facts and circumstances
of the present case.
5. The party, in person, has submitted that he
seeks review of the order on the issue of time line which has
been given by this Court to the Family Court. He has not
pointed out that despite being the order passed one year back,
what is the present progress of the concerned trial and he has
come to the Court for review of the order passed by this Court.
In this way, he wants to linger the matter at one pretext or
another though marriage took place in the year 2010 and the
matter has already been decided by the family Court in the year
2022. It is a matter of great hardship for the litigant to continue
the case for such a long period in such a matrimonial dispute
where half of the age has already been spent in litigation before
the Court. In the interest of justice, the time frame is given in
exceptional situation. In the present case parties have already
spent so much time in litigation in such a matrimonial dispute,
so six months' time frame was given to the concerned Court to
decide the matter after hearing both the parties. The petitioner
has intentionally approached this Court without pointing out as
to what is the present status of the trial and how much time will
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
be taken to conclude the trial. Generally, the Court concerned,
who faces difficulty in deciding the matter within the time
frame, may seek extra time for disposal of the case. In the
present case, the Court has not come up expressing its difficulty
in disposal of the case, rather the party in person came to the
Court stating that time line is not needed in the present case. In
such scenario, the grievance of the petitioner, in person, is
devoid of any merit and accordingly, the present review petition
is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the light of aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, it is necessary to quote para 37 (c) of
judgment of Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of High Court Bar Association,
Allahabad vs. State of U.P. & Ors. which reads as under:-
"37(c)"Constitutional Courts, in the
ordinary course, should refrain from
fixing a time-bound schedule for the
disposal of cases pending before any other
Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue
directions for the time-bound disposal of
cases only in exceptional circumstances.
The issue of prioritising the disposal of
cases should be best left to the decision of
the concerned Courts where the cases are
pending.
The cited decision on behalf of party in person is
not assisting having regard to the factual aspect of the matter.
7. Besides this, scope of review is limited in the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
light of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan & Ors. reported in
2023 SCC OnLine SC 185 elaborately considered under what
circumstances courts can review its own order. Recently in yet
another decision in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State
Tax Officer (1) & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406
Hon'ble Supreme Court lays down eight principles in Para 16
which reads as under:-
"16. The gist of the afore-
stated decisions is that:--
(i) A judgment is open to
review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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 justifying the
court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the
jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is
not permissible for an erroneous decision to be
"reheard and corrected."
(v) A Review Petition has
a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
"an appeal in disguise."
(vi) Under the guise of
review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to
reagitate and reargue the questions which have
already been addressed and decided.
(vii) 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.
(viii) Even the change in
law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-
ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be
regarded as a ground for review."
8. In the light of principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision, the petitioner has also not
made out a case so as to review the judgment dated 17.05.2024
passed in Misc. Appeal No. 113 of 2022. Hence, the civil review
petition stands dismissed.
9. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
cost of Rs. 5000/- is necessary to be imposed on the petitioner
so that he should not litigate the matter unnecessarily just to
keep the record pending for indefinite period. Hence, cost of
Rs. 5000/- (rupees five thousand) is imposed upon the
petitioner-Prabhash Kumar which shall be remitted to the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
Lawyer's Association Welfare Benevolent Fund having Bank
Account No. 7801893276.
10. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
shahzad/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 02.05.2025
Uploading Date 14.05.2025
Transmission Date N.A.
