Munaka Devi And ORS v. Sri Ram Narain Singh And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Second Appeal No.312 of 1986 ======================================================
1. (a) Munaka Devi, wife of Ameshwar Singh (b) Urmila Devi, daughter of Ameshwar Singh
2. Janardan Singh
3. Rajeshwar Singh, both sons of Baldhari Mahto @ Baldhari Singh
4. Most. Jirmatia Devi, widow of Deo Bansh Singh, All residents of Village Ajda, PS Paliganj, District Patna ........ Defendants........ Appellants .... .... Appellants
Versus
1. (a) Sri Ram Narain Singh, son of Kesho Prasad Singh (b) Sri Ranjit Singh, son of Kesho Prasad Singh (c ) Smt. Rama Devi, daughter of Kesho Prasad Singh Resident of Village Ajda, P.S. Paliganj, District Patna ....... Plaintiff............... Respondent lst party
2. Damodar Singh, minor son of Amleshwar Singh
3. Parijan Singh, minor son of Janardan Singh, both under guardianship of Sri Beni Madhava Tiwary, guardian-ad-litem .............. Defendants ...... Respondent 2nd party
4. Smt. Yasoda Devi, wife of Yadu Singh and daughter of Late Baldhai Singh @ Baldhari Mahto of Village Purnadih, P.S. Nawadah, District Nawada
5. Smt. Radhika Devi, wife of Ramashish Singh and daughter of Late Baldhai Singh @ Baldhari Mahto of Village Satnag, P.S. Chandi, District Nalanda .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Naresh Prasad Mr. Lala Deoki Nandan Prasad Mr. Ram Anuj Prasad Singh Mr. Ashok Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suraj Narayan Yaddav Mr. Pancha Nand Pandit Mr. Manish Kumar Mr. Prithvi Raj Sinha Mr. Harish Kr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 01-09-2015 Nobody has again appeared on behalf of the appellants when this matter has been called out.
Perused the office note, from which it transpires that this
Patna High Court SA No.312 of 1986 (35) dt.01-09-2015 appeal has stood dismissed for default as against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The competency of this appeal as against the remaining respondents has been placed for consideration. From the records, it transpires that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been impleaded as defendant-respondents. As nobody has appeared to point out that this appeal will survive as against the remaining respondents, it is held that this appeal has become incompetent and is dismissed as such.
(V. Nath, J.) Snkumar/- U