IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.160 of 2011 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 852/2006) 1. THE CANARA BANK THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, 112, J.C. ROAD, BANGLORE 560002. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, CANARA BANK, 112, J.C. ROAD, BANGLORE 560002. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK, LUV KUSH TOWER, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, BEGUSARAI. ALL REPRESENTED THROUGH MR. RANJAN GHOSHRAVE, SENIOR MANAGER, R & L SECTION AS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,CIRCLE OFFICE, R& L SECTION, LUV KUSH TOWER, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA. Versus 1. SHEO PRAKASH MASKARA 2. JAY PRAKASH MASKARA 3. SAROJ KUMAR MASKARA 4. SANTOSH KUMAR MASKARA, ALL SONS OF LATE MATRUMAL MASKARA, RESIDENTS OF GOUSHALA ROAD, BEGUSARAI, BIHAR. 5. SHANTI DEVI AGRAWAL WIFE OF SHANKAR LAL AGRAWAL, RESIDENT OF MANGAL BAZAR, KATIHAR. 6. SUMITRA DEVI SARAF WIFE OF LATE PARMESHWAR LAL SARAF RESIDENT OF TOWER CHOWK, DARBHANGA. 7. SHAKUNTALA DEVI SHAH WIFE OF LATE NAWAL KISHORE SHAH RESIDENT OF M.P. DWIVEDI ROAD, BHAGALPUR, ALL ARE HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED PETITIONER KISHNI DEVI MASKARA WHO WERE DIRECTED TO BE SUBSTITUTED IN THE WRIT APPLICAITON BY ORDER DATED 22.2.2011 PASSED ON THE BASIS OF I.A. NO.872 OF 2011 BUT IN THE CERTIFIED COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER THEIR NAMES HAVE BEEN LEFT TO BE ADDED IN PLACE OF ORIGINAL PETITIONER 8. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, STATE OF BIHAR & JHARKHAND, 2ND FLOOR, BISCOMAN TOWER, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA AT PRESENT RESERVED BANK OF INDIA, SOUTH GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-1 For the petitioner : Mr. R.K.P. Singh, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : Mr. O.P. Agrawal, Advocate. ------------- 04. 25.11.2011 By filing this review petition Canara Bank through its Senior Branch Manager is seeking review of the order dated 22.02.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. 2 No.852 of 2006 whereunder this Court directed the Bank to renew the Kamdhenu Deposit Receipt referred to in the said order with effect from the date of their maturity and not with effect from the date of presentation as was done by the Bank itself in respect to K.D.R. No.356 of 1996, Annexure-3 to the writ petition. By filing the review petition it is submitted that direction of this Court is contrary to the directions of the Reserve Bank of India. The submission that direction to renew the Kamdhenu Deposit Receipt with effect from the date of maturity and not from the date of presentation is contrary to the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India was never raised before this Court during the hearing of the writ petition nor the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India were placed on record with the writ petition. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the review petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)