IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.892 of 2006 RADHEY SHYAM MEGOTIA Versus KAUSHAL KISHORE SINGH & ORS ----------- 8 11.11.2008 For the reasons mentioned in this application (I.A. No. 2376 of 2006), the same is allowed and the delay in filing of the civil revision application is condoned. Coming to the merits of this case, this Court would find difficulty as to how a civil revision will be maintainable when the suit itself has been dismissed. The reliance placed by the Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the case of Nirupama Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, through Collector, Bhagalpur & Ors. reported in 1997(2) PLJR 738 is wholly misconceived inasmuch as from paragraph no.1 read with paragraph no. 4 thereof, it would be clear that in that case, the suit had not been dismissed. In fact, Mr. Sukumar Sinha is right in placing his reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivnath Chandra & Ors. Vrs. Vijay Chandra & Ors. and Vijay Chandra & Ors. Vrs. Shivnath Yadav reported in 1991(1) BLJR 308 wherein it has been held that as against the dismissal of a suit even on a preliminary point or rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11, the appeal alone would lie and a civil revision 2 application will not be maintainable. Faced with the situation, Mr. Parbat would seek leave of this Court to file an appeal within a period of three weeks from today. Keeping in view that the petitioner under some misconceived notion and an incorrect advice, had filed this civil revision application, will be at liberty to press his application for condoning the delay in filing of an appeal and the Appellate Court, taking into account that this civil revision application has remained pending ever since 19.6.2006, would proceed further to decide the matter on merit instead of rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation. With the aforementioned observations, this civil revision application is hereby disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)