IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.339 of 2009 5 20.11.2009 Kaushal Kishore Prasad Singh, Son of Late Braj Mohan Prasad Singh, Resident of Opposite CJM Court, Kutchery Road, P.O. P.S. and District Begusarai ...... Appellant (Petitioner in civil review) VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sri Sanjeev Hans, District Magistrate, Begusarai 3. Sri Md. Abdul Rehman, Executive Officer, Begusarai Municipality, Begusarai 4. Kartik Lall son of Late Rameshwar Lal, Proprietor of M/s New Talwar Machinery, Resident of Ku8tchery Road, At & P.O. Begusarai ...... Respondents (Opposite parties) -------- Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned counsel for the Begusarai Municipal Corporation. It is the case of the appellant that respondent no.4 has made unauthorized construction beyond the sanctioned map and permissible limits which led to filing of a writ petition by the appellant which was allowed by judgment and order dated 4.10.2005. Offending part of building was directed to be removed by the Municipal authorities of Begusarai with the help of SP, Begusarai. That order of the Writ Court contained in Annexure-1 was 2 confirmed in LPA No.1167 of 2005 disposed of on 26.10.2005, by order contained in Annexure-2. According to learned counsel for the appellant, even the SLP preferred in the Supreme Court against Annexure-2 was dismissed but the offending structure ordered to be removed, was not removed to the detriment of the appellant who is an adjacent neighbour and hence, he preferred a contempt petition bearing MJC No.2627 of 2006 which was listed on 23.7.2008. As the order contained in Annexure-3 shows, nobody could appear on that date on behalf of the applicant and on a submission by counsel for the respondent no.4 that the Court’s order was complied with, the application was disposed of without costs. It is further case of the appellant that the aforesaid submission on behalf of respondent no.4 was false and the order of the Writ Court as confirmed up to the Supreme Court, was never complied with and, therefore, appellant filed Civil Review no.173 of 2008 for recall of the order dated 23.7.2008 and for hearing of the contempt application on merits but the review petition has 3 been summarily dismissed by the order under appeal dated 3.2.2009. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 could not point out any material on record which could satisfy this Court that the earlier orders in favour of the appellant have been complied with. Even the review petition has been dismissed summarily without inquiry into relevant facts and without recording a finding or satisfaction that the earlier orders have been complied with. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that interest of justice requires that Civil Review no.173 of 2008 be allowed and order dated 23.7.2008 passed in MJC NO.2627 of 2006 be recalled. We order accordingly. As a result, MJC No.2627 of 2006 is revived and it shall be listed before appropriate Bench for hearing on merits at the stage of admission itself. This appeal is allowed to that extent only. It is made clear that we have not expressed our views on the merits of the contention whether the earlier orders in favour of the appellant have been complied with 4 or not. That will be examined by the court hearing the contempt matter. (Shiva Kirti Singh,ACJ) (Shyam Kishore Sharma,J.) sk