Mohmid Mian @ Abdul Majid And Or v. Indradeo Mahto And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Second Appeal No.122 of 1991 ======================================================

1. Mohmid Mian @ Abdul Majid

2. Sahid Mian, sons of Madin Mian

3. Jaigun

4. Jaigunia

5. Noorjahan, all daughters of Madin Mian

6. Id Mohammad Mian, son of Madin Mian, All residents of Village Amanur Harnarain, P.O. Amnaur, P.S. Marhaura, District Saran ........ Plaintiffs ............. Respondents .... .... Appellants

Versus

1. Indradeo Mahto, son of Sheo Pujan Mahto

2. Sri Bhagwan, son of Sita Ram, both residents of Amnaur Harnarain, P.O. Amnaur, P.S. Marhaura, District Saran

3. Brij Kishore Singh

4. Nand Kishore Singh

5. Jai Kishore Singh, sons of Kameshwar Singh @ Tukar Singh

6. Most. Binda Kuar, w/o Kameshwar Singh @ Tukar Singh

7. Prem Kumari

8. Mem Kumari, both daughters of Kameshwar Singh @ Tukar Singh

9. Ambika Mahto

10. Babulal Mahto, both sons of Raghunath Mahto

11. Mosmat Bhagia, wife of Raghunath Mahto

12. Bigani Devi

13. Chandrawati Devi, both daughters of Raghunath Mahto

14. Mosmat Bhagia, wife of Mahendra Mahto

15. Jaleshwari Devi, daughter of Mahendra Mahto

16. Laxminia Devi

17. Tapeshwari Devi, both daughters of Bansauli Mahto

18. Mosmat Nagina Kuar, wife of Sita Ram Mahto (name expunged) All residents of Village Amnaur Harnarain, P.O. & P.S. Amnaur, District Siwan .... Defendants ............. Respondents .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vijay Kr.Sinha Mr. Prakash Chand Gupta Mr. Pandit Ji Pandey Mr. Dharmendra Choubey For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kr. Uday Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 07-01-2016 Nobody appears on behalf of the appellants even after

Patna High Court SA No.122 of 1991 (14) dt.07-01-2016 repeated calls.

Perused the office note, from which it transpires that this appeal has stood dismissed for default as against respondent Nos. 6 to 8 in consequence of the order dated 1.9.2015. From perusal of the memo of appeal it further transpires that respondent Nos. 6 to 8 were defendants in the suit whereas the plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal. In absence of respondent Nos. 6 to 8, proceeding further with this appeal may result in inconsistent orders and conflicting decrees.

This appeal is, therefore, dismissed as incompetent. (V. Nath, J.) Snkumar/- U