Punita Kumari vs The State of Bihar through the Assistant Chief Addl. Secretary — MJC/1614/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 19th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: BRHC010468512024

e-Filing Number

03-05-2024

Filing Number

MJC/10633/2024

Filing Date

06-May-2024

Registration No

MJC/1614/2024

Registration Date

07-May-2024

Judge

Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah

Coram

Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

MJC ( 10 )

Sub-Category

RESTORATION-SJ ( 200 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

19-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 151

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Punita Kumari

    Adv. GAJENDRA KUMAR

  2. 2.Manisha Kumari

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Bihar through the Assistant Chief Addl. Secretary

  2. 2.The District Magistrate, Madhepura,

  3. 3.The Civil Surgeon Cum Member Secretary,

  4. 4.The Chief Medical Officer,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar ShahView PDF

    The Patna High Court allowed the petition filed by Punita Kumari and Manisha Kumari to restore their original writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 17219 of 2021), which had been dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.03.2024. The court accepted the petitioners' explanation that their counsel's mobile device became dysfunctional, preventing receipt of the hearing notice, and found it appropriate to grant restoration based on the facts and circumstances presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 31-Aug-2024

    Miscellaneous

    The Joint Registrar Judicial Lawazima

  4. 06-May-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. MJC/1614/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Patna High Court allowed the petition filed by Punita Kumari and Manisha Kumari to restore their original writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 17219 of 2021), which had been dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.03.2024. The court accepted the petitioners' explanation that their counsel's mobile device became dysfunctional, preventing receipt of the hearing notice, and found it appropriate to grant restoration based on the facts and circumstances presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case