IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1185 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.15776 of 2009 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.6687of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1185 of 2010 ABHINAV MALLICK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ================================================= APPEARANCE For the Appellant : Mr. Sandipen, Advocate For the State respondent : Ms. G. Nisha, AC to AAG VII For the Respondents 2 to 5: Mr. Alok Kr.Choudhary Mr. Nagendra Kumar, Advocates ================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 12/8/2010 I.A. No.6687 of 2010 This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 25 days occurred in filing the above Letters Patent Appeal. Learned advocate Ms. G. Nisha appears for the respondent no.1 and learned advocate Mr. Alok K.Choudhary appears for the respondent nos.2 to 5. They have no objection if delay is condoned. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. 2 LPA. No.1185 of 2010 Heard the learned advocates. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 11th May 2010 made by the learned Single Judge in above CWJC. No.15776 of 2009, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant is a trader, who had applied to the State Bank of India for a loan. It is the complaint of the appellant that though he had applied for a loan as early as in the year 2007, loan papers were not processed by the Bank. The Bank contested the writ petition and filed the counter affidavit. It is stated that the title of the property that was offered by the appellant for mortgage was not clear inasmuch as the appellant had already borrowed a loan on that property from the Punjab National Bank by creating charge over that property. The appellant was a defaulter of the Punjab National Bank. The learned Single Judge has held that the appellant had no enforceable right to borrow loan. Accordingly, the writ petition has been dismissed. We agree with the learned Single Judge. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Neyaz/ ( R. M. Doshit,CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) 3