LAWS(PAT)-1999-7-10

NAKULESH SURENDRA SHAHI Vs. MITHILESHWARI DEVI

Decided On July 12, 1999
NAKULESH SURENDRA SHAHI Appellant
V/S
MITHILESHWARI DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for review/rehearing of First Appeal No. 29 of 1973 which was allowed ex-parte against the review petitioner.

(2.) First Appeal in question was listed for hearing on 16.12.1987 before B.N. Agrawal, J. The review petitioner was represented by Sri Rama Kant Verma, Sr. Advocate, who was assisted by Miss Ranjit Chatta. After the death of Sri Verma Sri Krishna Prakash Sinha, Sr. Advocate was engaged and the brief was handed over to him. On 22.4.1988 First Appeal was heard in part by B.N. Agrawal, J. The case was again listed on 5.5.1988 and His Lordship ordered that the case be listed before another Bench.

(3.) The case went out of list and was not listed for three years. During this period Sri Nakulesh Surendra Shahi, husband of the original review petitioner tried to contact the junior Counsel Miss Ranjit Chatta and he learned that the Counsel had gone out of Patna for some treatment. It is to be mentioned that the case was being looked after by Sri Sheo Nandan Prasad, Clerk of Late R.K. Verma. Sheo Nandan Prasad assured Mr. Shahi that he would look after the case. Whenever Mr. $hahi came to Patna, he enquired about the case from Sheo Nandan Prasad and he always replied that he would inform him when the case was likely to be taken up. First Appeal was heard by me on several dates and judgment was reserved. The judgment was delivered on 31st July, 1992 allowing the appeal. Mr. Shahi had no information about the case. He, however, learnt from his friends that something has happened in the case. He rushed to Patna on 3.8.1993 and tried to meet Sheo Nandan Prasad who was looking after his case. He came to know that Sheo Nandan Prasad has died a year before Mr. Shahi then contacted Mr. Krishna Prakash Sinha Sr. Counsel, who said that he did not know anything about the case. Mr. Shahi then contacted a lower with whom he was related and learnt that the appeal has been allowed ex-parte.