← Library
Patna High CourtC.Misc./728/2017dismissed

Jung Bahadur Yadav Alias Jung Bahadur Gope And ORS v. Sarvesh Kumar And ORS

2024-09-10Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.728 of 2017 ====================================================== 1.

Jung Bahadur Yadav Alias Jung Bahadur Gope and Ors Son of Bharat Gope. 2.

Santosh Yadav 3.

Shankar Yadav 4.

Dharma Yadav alias Dharma Gope 5.

Madras Yadav alias Madras Gope Sl. No. 2 to 5 are Sons of Krishna Gope. 6.

Gore Yadav alias Gore Gope 7.

Guddu Yadav alias Guddu Gope Sl. No. 6 & 7 Sons of Umesh Gope, All resident of Mouja Bajidpur, P.S. Dip Nagar, District Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Sarvesh Kumar Son of Lakshmi Narayan Singh 2.

Smt. Shyama Devi Wife of Sarvesh Kumar Both resident of Mouja Mustafapur, P.O. Sonsa, P.S. Rahui, District Nalanda. 3.

Chandan Gope Son of Krishna Gope, resident of Mouja Bajidpur, P.S. Dip Nagar, District Nalanda.

4.

Naresh Yadav 5.

Jalandhar Yadav 6.

Mahesh Yadav 7.

Binod Yadav Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 all are sons of Late Basudeo Yadav, Resident of Mouja Bajidpur, P.S. Dip Nagar, District Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Lala Sachindra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 10-09-2024 From the order dated 18.03.2024, it appears that learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to take steps for fresh service of notice upon respondent nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter, on 24.06.2024 the learned counsel for the petitioners was again directed to take steps for fresh service of notice upon respondent

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.728 of 2017(6) dt.10-09-2024 2/2 nos. 1 and 2 within four weeks, failing which the petition was to be dismissed. But it appears that there is total non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite best efforts, the present and correct address of respondent nos. 1 and 2 could not be find.

3. However, no interlocutory application seeking further extension of time has been filed.

4. Hence, for non-compliance of order dated 24.06.2024, the present petition stands dismissed. (Arun Kumar Jha, J) DKS/- U