IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No 128 of 2008 The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Masaurhi Branch, District - Patna - Petitioner-Respondent Versus 1 Baldeo Singh, son of late Judagi Singh 2 Surendra Singh, son of Baldev Singh, residents of village – Karwan, P O – Daulatpur, P S – Bhagwanganj, District – Patna 3 The State of Bihar through the Collector, Patna 4 The Sub-Divisional Magistrate –cum- Certificate Officer, Masaurhi, District – Patna - Opposite Parties *** For the petitioner-respondent - M/s Chitranjan Sinha, Sr Advocate With Namrata Mishra, Advocate For the opposite parties - Mr Mritunjay Pd Singh, Advocate *** 6 01.12.2010 This review application is in fact an application for substantive review of the order passed by this Court. This Court had set aside the certificate proceedings as against the writ petitioners on two grounds. Firstly, the certificate case was instituted without even payment of Court fee and proceeded with and secondly that there was no certificate issued in eye of law. The records were called for by this Court and it was found that both these issues of fact stood established. By this review application, the review petitioner seeks to submit that though in the counter affidavit also, they had not disputed non-payment of Court fee but now they have got some records to show that Court fee was in fact paid, in support thereof, they have annexed a copy of a page of a register maintained by the Bank which bears the stamping of Certificate Officer. In my view, this is no evidence of payment of Court fee. However, liberty is granted to the review petitioner to move the 2 Certificate Court concerned and satisfy it with regard to payment of Court fee. If the Certificate Court, on evidence to be recorded, finds that Court fee was duly paid when the requisition was filed, he would then proceed all afresh with the certificate proceedings but in case he finds from the records that Court fee has not been actually deposited in respect of the certificate proceeding in question, he would not reopen the matter. This would, however, be subject to notice to the certificate debtors and after hearing them in the matter. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)