Patna High Court

Asst. General Manager,versusShahara Bano

Decided: 16 January 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: RAJIV ROY ALOK KUMAR SINHA

Holding

A review petition filed after the limitation period without a limitation petition must be dismissed.

Summary

The State Bank of India filed a review petition (CIVIL REVIEW No.266 of 2023) seeking a review of the Patna High Court's order dated 18‑05‑2022 that dismissed Letters Patent Appeal No.1701 of 2019. The review petition was filed on 19‑09‑2023, well beyond the prescribed limitation period, and no limitation petition was filed alongside it despite being directed to do so. The Joint Registrar gave the petitioner an extension until 21‑07‑2025, but the petitioner still failed to file a limitation petition. The Court observed that the petitioner had no valid interest in pursuing the review after such inordinate delay and held that a review petition filed after the limitation period without a limitation petition must be dismissed. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a review petition filed after the limitation period, without a concurrent limitation petition, is maintainable?

Subjects

review petition
limitation period
high court
letters patent appeal
civil procedure
dismissal

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                        CIVIL REVIEW No.266 of 2023
                                                       In
                                     Letters Patent Appeal No.1701 of 2019
                 ======================================================
           1.     Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Centralized Pension Processing
                  Centre, 4th Floor, Administrative Building, Judges Court Road, Patna.
           2.    The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Salmari, Katihar.

                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
           1.    Shahara Bano W/o Late Mahboob Alam Resident of Village-Dandama, P.S.-
                 Azam Nagar, and District-Katihar.
           2.    The Director Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
                 Bihar, Patna.
           3.    The District Superintendant of Education, Katihar.
           4.    The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Rakesh Kumar Singh
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Sarvesh Kumar Singh (Aag 13)
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                         and
                         HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

                 (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY)

3   16-01-2026                  Heard the parties.

                                2. The present petition has been preferred for the

                   following relief/s:

                                              (i) for review of the Order dated

                                              18.05.2022, passed by this Hon'ble Court,

                                              in connection with Letters Patent Appeal

                                              No. 1701 of 2019 (The Asst. General
Patna High Court C. REV. No.266 of 2023(3) dt.16-01-2026
                                             2/3




                                   Manager State Bank of India & Ors.

                                   Versus. Shahar Bano and Ors.) arising out

                                   of CWJC No. 14320 of 2018 (Shahar

                                   Bano, W/o Late Mahboob Alam vs. The

                                   State of Bihar through the Principal

                                   Secretary,         Education   Department,

                                   Government of Bihar, Patna & Ors.)..

                        3. In this case, the LPA No. 170 of 2019 was

          dismissed on 18.05.2022.

                        4. The review petition came to be filed on

          19.09.2023 much beyond the time for filing it. Naturally, it

          should have come alongwith limitation petition which was not

          done.

                        5. The office pointed out the defects which

          included the defect no.35 recording that the limitation petition

          has not been filed. Despite the office pointed it out, no

          limitation petition was filed.

                        6. The matter went before the learned Joint

          Registrar (J) on 23.06.2025 who gave time till 21.07.2025 for

          taking necessary steps.

                        7. As per the office notes, even then, no limitation

          petition filed.
         Patna High Court C. REV. No.266 of 2023(3) dt.16-01-2026
                                                      3/3




                                 8. Clearly, the review petitioner has no interest in

                   pursuing the review petition. It was filed much beyond the

                   time for filing such review. Naturally, it should have come

                   alongwith the limitation petition. Even then, a long rope was

                   given.

                                 9. This Court is of the view that a review petition

                   filed after inordinate delay without the limitation petition

                   needs dismissal.

                                 10. Accordingly ordered. The Review Petition no.

                   266 of 2023 is dismissed.



                                                  (Rajiv Roy, J)


                                            ( Alok Kumar Sinha, J)

Ravi/-

U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…