Jagdish Prasad Tatma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
Patna High Court CWJC No.5782 of 1997 (9) dt.16-04-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5782 of 1997 ====================================================== Jagdish Prasad Tatma, Son of Late Akhik Tatma, Resident of VillageBishanpur Dutta, P.S.- Banmankhi, District-Purnea. .... .... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Banmankhi, District-Purnea.
3. Circle Officer, Banmankhi, District-Purnea.
4. Sri Mahamunga Devi, Wife of Ram Nath Singh.
5. Sri Biranchi Mandal, Son of Gobardhan Mandal. Both residents of village and P.S.- Banmankhi, District- Purena.
6. Mostt. Kaili Devi, Wife of Late Sant Lal Sharma. .... Respondents.
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shobha Nath Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr Shrinandan Prasad Singh, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar No.1, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 16-04-2015 No body appears on behalf of the petitioner in spite of the repeated calls for hearing.
Mr. Shrinandan Singh, the learned counsel has appeared for the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7. Mr. Singh, the learned counsel has pointed out that this writ application has already stood dismissed for default as against respondent nos. 4 and 8. With regard to respondent no.8, Mr. Singh, the learned counsel has also pointed out that the writ application was already dismissed as against the said respondent for non-compliance of the order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.5782 of 1997 (9) dt.16-04-2015 17.09.2013. It has also been submitted that the respondent nos.4 and 8 were necessary parties to the writ application but it does not appear from the record that any step on behalf of the petitioner has been taken for restoration of this writ application up-till-now. In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions, proceeding further with this application, in absence of the respondent nos.4 and 8, may result in inconsistent of this order. As such, this writ application is dismissed as incompetent.
(V. Nath, J) Nitesh/- U