Patna High Court
Munna SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The review petition is dismissed as the petitioners have not satisfied any of the statutory grounds for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Summary
The petitioners, represented by Munna Sahni, sought to withdraw a writ petition challenging the cancellation of their cooperative society membership and asked the court to allow them to approach the appropriate forum. The State of Bihar opposed the review of the order allowing withdrawal, arguing that review is only permissible on discovery of new evidence, apparent mistake, or any other sufficient reason as per Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The court examined whether the petitioners' request to withdraw the writ petition constituted a sufficient ground for review. It held that the petitioners had not demonstrated any of the statutory grounds for review and that their own request to withdraw did not create a new or sufficient reason. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed, leaving the original order allowing withdrawal intact.
Issues considered
- The maintainability of a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
- Whether a petitioner's request to withdraw a writ petition constitutes a sufficient ground for review
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure — s. Order 47 Rule 1
Subjects
- review petition
- maintainability
- Order 47 Rule 1
- Civil Procedure Code
- withdrawal of writ petition
- jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.221 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14105 of 2023
======================================================
1. Munna Sahni Son of Krishna Dev Sahni, resident of Village, P.O. and P.S.-
Gaighat, District - Muzaffarpur, Elected Secretary of Gaighat Prakhand
Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd. Gaighat.
2. Gaighat Prakhand Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd., Gaighat through its
Elected Secretary Munna Sahni.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry and
Fisheries Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Pramandal, Muzaffarpur.
3. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
4. The District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Muzaffarpur.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur.
6. The District Co-operative Officer, Muzaffarpur.
7. The Asst. Registrar Co-operative Societies, East Anchal, Muzaffarpur.
8. The Dy. Director Fisheries, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
9. The Anchaladhikari, Block- Gaighat, District - Muzaffarpur.
10. Balraj Sahni, Son of Late Yogendar Sahni, resident of village- Susta, P.O.-
Susta Tok, P.S. Gaighat, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General 12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the
review petitioners and Additional Advocate General 12 for the
State.
2. The present review petition has been filed for
reviewing the order dated 01.07.2024 passed in CWJC No.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.221 of 2024(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
14105 of 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the State has taken a
preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the
review petition and draws attention of this Court to the
paragraph no. 2 of the order dated 01.07.2024 passed in CWJC
No. 14105 of 2023 which is quoted hereinbelow:-
"2. After some arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this writ
petition with liberty to the petitioners to move
before the appropriate forum for challenging the
cancellation of their membership."
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the
petitioners have suo moto sought liberty to withdraw the writ
petition with liberty to the petitioners to move before the
appropriate forum for challenging the cancellation of their
membership.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that
principles relating to the review the jurisdiction is well ordained
and settled and are quoted hereinbelow:-
"(i) The review is maintainable only in the event of
discovery of new and an important matter or evidence
which after the exercise of due diligence was not within
the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be
produced by him.
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of record and
(iii) For any other sufficient reason."
Patna High Court C. REV. No.221 of 2024(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
6. The expression 'any other sufficient reason' is not
wide enough to include the perception of the Court regarding
the petitioners that they had not approached the Court with clean
hands. 'Any other sufficient reason' would include such ground
which are analogous to the other two stipulated grounds under
Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. It appears from the review petition that the
petitioners have not made out the case of the principles relating
to review petition and petitioners themselves have sought
permission to withdraw the writ petition.
8. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for
reviewing the order dated 01.07.2024 passed in CWJC No.
14105 of 2023.
9. Accordingly, the present review petition stands
dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U
Checking your session…