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.
( R. M. Doshit,CJ.)
(Jyoti Saran, J.)
Neyaz/
3