IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1555 of 2011 In Civil Review No. 235 of 2010 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10706 of 2009 With Interlocutory Application No. 7349 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1555 of 2011. ====================================================== 1. The Punjab National Bank, through the General Manager, Human Resources Development Division, 8th Floor, 7, Bhikhaji Camma Place, New Delhi 2. The Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Regal Hotel, 2nd Floor, East Ramna Road, Ara, Bhojpur through Appellate Authority 3. The Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Regal Hotel, 2nd Floor, East Ramna Road, Ara, Bhojpur 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Human Resources Development Section, Regional Office, Ara .... .... Respondents ……. Petitioners …. Appellants Versus Suresh Prasad Malakar, son of Murlidhar Mali, Resident of Village Soharipatti, Buxar, Police Station and Town Buxar, District - Buxar .... .... Petitioner ……… Opposite party ……. Respondent. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prashant Vedasen, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Jagdish Prasad-I, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 03-11-2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 7349 of 2011. The delay of 17 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Patna High Court LPA No.1555 of 2011 (3) dt.03-11-2011 2 / 3 2 Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1555 of 2011. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the applicant Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”) against the order dated 27th July 2011 made on Civil Review No. 235 of 2010. Against the order of removal from service with superannuation benefits made against the delinquent servant, the respondent herein, the respondent filed the above CWJC No. 10706 of 2009. The said writ petition came to be allowed by the learned single Judge on 23rd July 2010. Feeling aggrieved, the Bank preferred Civil Review No. 235 of 2010 for review of the judgment and order dated 23rd July 2010 on the premise that the Bank had inadvertently failed to produce the record of the disciplinary proceeding to deny the allegations of violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned single Judge has dismissed the review petition by the impugned order dated 27th July 2011. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Prashant Vedasen has appeared for the appellant Bank. He has submitted that the delinquent had been given fair opportunity of defence. The Bank had followed the principles of natural justice scrupulously. Nevertheless, as the Bank did not produce the material documents, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the ground that proper opportunity of defence was not granted to the delinquent. Mr. Vedasen has relied upon Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC to submit that a mistake by the party is a good ground for review of the order. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Patna High Court LPA No.1555 of 2011 (3) dt.03-11-2011 3 / 3 3 Court in the matter of Board of Control for Cricket, India & Anr. Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors. (AIR 2005 SC 592), particularly paragraphs 88 to 90 thereof. We see no substance in the contention raised by Mr. Vedasen. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held “…a mistake on the part of the Court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order.” Thus, it is not the case of the Bank that in spite of due diligence it could not bring the relevant materials to the notice of the Court and the mistake of the party, in our view, does not constitute good ground for review of the judgment or order. We have also noticed that the appellant Bank has not preferred appeal against the above referred judgment and order dated 23rd July 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition. In our view, the Bank failed to make out a ground for review. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the review petition. No case for interference is made out. Besides, as provided in Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC, appeal against the order of rejection of the review is not maintainable. Therefore also, this Appeal cannot be entertained. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)