IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.223 of 2007 UNION OF INDIA & ORS Versus AWADHESH KUMAR & ORS 6 07.05.2008 I.A. No. 1679 of 2007 In two writ petitions filed petitioners contended that they have been wrongfully removed from service. The writ petitions were allowed holding that the order of removal, as passed against the petitioners, is not proper. The Court directed reinstatement of the writ petitioners and also payment of their back wages. The Court also gave liberty to the appellant to take such other steps as the appellant may deem fit and proper against those writ petitioners. Against the said order the appellant has already preferred an appeal, that appeal is pending. By a subsequent application the appellant sought to bring on record two reports, which were within the knowledge of the appellant at the time when it filed the counter affidavits to the writ petitions and also before the order disposing of the writ - 2 - petitions was passed, to suggest that the removal by the appellant of the writ petitioners was justified. These two reports were confined to four of the writ petitioners. It is well settled in law that it is not permissible for a party to rely upon a material, for the purpose of reviewing an order, when that material was with the party immediately before the order was passed. However, the modification application was disposed of by the order impugned in present appeal by giving liberty to the appellant to proceed against those four writ petitioners upon drawing their attention to those two reports. As such we feel that there is no just reason for being aggrieved by the order appealed against, but the order is, in fact, in favour of the appellant. In those circumstances, we feel that it would be an idle formality to go into the question whether sufficient reasons exist for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. We, accordingly, dispose of the application for condonation of delay without condoning the delay in preferring the appeal and in consequence thereof the appeal also fails and the same is dismissed. It is made clear that this order or the order passed on the modification - 3 - application will not prejudice the appellant in the other pending appeal. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.) AAhmad/