Sikkim High Court
Review Pet./2/2021 of Dinku Khati Vs Kamal Kumari Subba on 20 July 2021
COURT OF SIKKIM Record of Proceedings through Video Conferencing REVIEW PET. (C) No. 02/2021 DINKU KHATI PETITIONER (S) VERSUS KAMAL KUMARI SUBBA RESPONDENT (S) For Petitioner : Mr. B.K. Gupta, Legal Aid Counsel For Respondent : Date: 20/07/2021 CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
REVIEW PET. (C) No. 02/2021
DINKU KHATI PETITIONER (S)
VERSUS
KAMAL KUMARI SUBBA RESPONDENT (S)
For Petitioner : Mr. B.K. Gupta, Legal Aid Counsel For Respondent :
Date: 20/07/2021
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR MAHESHWARI, CJ. …
This Review Petition is arising out of a judgment dated 24.03.2020 passed in RFA No.03/2019 filed on 12.04.2021 in defect which was rectified on 10.07.2021.
In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 03/2020 (In-Re: Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation), dated 08.03.2021, the period of limitation has been extended, therefore, it is filed within the period of limitation.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has placed reliance on Section 68 of the Evidence Act inter alia contending that one witness to the document has been examined but Court has wrongly appreciated the same, therefore, it falls within the purview of the error apparent on the face of the record.
After going through the finding as recorded by the learned Judge, it appears that such finding is based on appreciation of evidence which would not fall within the purview of error apparent on the face of the record. If petitioner wants to assail those findings he may take recourse of law.
In view of the above, in my considered opinion, there is no error apparent on the face of the record to interfere with this Review Petition.
Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Chief Justice