Patna High Court

Vinita Devi @ Vinita KumariversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 18 February 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: BIBEK CHAUDHURI

Holding

The application for restoration was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

Summary

Vinita Devi filed a criminal revision and later moved an application for restoration of the proceedings. No counsel appeared on her behalf, and the counsel who did appear was not the advocate on record. The court noted an inordinate delay in filing the restoration application. Because the application was filed out of time and the counsel lacked authority, the court dismissed the restoration application on the ground of limitation. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without any further relief.

Issues considered

Whether the restoration application can be entertained despite being filed after the limitation period.
Whether a counsel who is not the advocate on record has the authority to move the restoration application.

Subjects

restoration of appeal
limitation period
criminal revision
advocate on record
procedural law

Judgment

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83254 of 2025
                                                        In
                                    CRIMINAL REVISION No.916 of 2018
                  ======================================================
                  Vinita Devi @ Vinita Kumari D/o- Late Prahlad Sah R/o Mohalla- ward no.
                  03, Milkitola Baro, P.S. - Phoolwariya, District - Begusarai.
                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
             1.    The State of Bihar
             2.    Saroj Kumar Son of Prahalad Sah R/o Village - Uchchaith Durga Sthan, P.S.
                   - Benipatti, Dist. - Madhubani.
                                                                      ... ... Opposite Party/s
                  ======================================================
                  Appearance :
                  For the Petitioner/s     :
                  For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP
                  ======================================================
                  CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
                                        ORAL ORDER

2    18-02-2026                    None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

                                 2. No accommodation is prayed for.

                                 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared

                    today on behalf of the petitioner, does not have the power, wants

                    to move this application. He is not allowed to move this

                    application, as he is not the Advocate on record. It appears that

                    there is inordinate delay in filing the restoration application.

                                 4. Accordingly, the application for restoration is

                    dismissed on the ground of limitation.



                                               (Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Jyoti Kumari/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…