Patna High CourtSA/343/1996dfd for non appearance

Ram Chandra Singh And ORS. v. Yogendra Mahra And ORS

2016-05-12Mr. Justice V. Nath2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Second Appeal No.343 of 1996 ======================================================

1. Ram Chandra Singh

2. Shyam Chandra Singh, both sons of Late Raja Singh and resident of village- Hardia, Areraj, P.S.- Govindganj, District- East Champaran.

3. Rampati Devi, daughter of Late Raja Singh and wife of Kedar Singh, resident of village- Innargachi, P.S.- Sangrampur, district- East Champaran.

4. Saraswti Devi, daughter of Late Raja Singh and wife of Late Surendra Singh, resident of village- Sangrampur, P.S.- Sangrampur, District- East Champaran.

5. Asha Devi, daughter of Late Raja Singh and wife of Asheshwar Pandey, resident of village- Binwalia, P.S.- Paharpur, District- East Champaran.

6. Bharti Devi, daughter of Late Raja Singh, wife of Rajesh Kumar, resident of Near Rajiv Cold Storage, District- Siwan.

7. Babu Nandan Singh, son of Lakshmi Singh, resident of village- Hardia, Areraj, P.S.- Govindganj, District- East Champaran. .... .... Appellants

Versus

1. Yogendra Mahra, son of Mukhi Mahra, deceased.

2. Mathura Mahra.

3. Rajendra Mahra.

4. Sudama Mahra.

5. Ramsurat Mahto, all sons of Dular Mahra, deceased, all residents of village Areraj, P.O.- Areraj, P.S.- Govindganj, District - East Champaran.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashish Anshu For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suman Kumar Mr. Amar Nath Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 12-05-2016 Nobody appears on behalf of the appellants.

From the order dated 16.12.2013, it appears that Mr. Mrityunjai Prasad Singh, learned advocate had made the submission before the Court that he would be filing vakalatnama on behalf of the appellants, and the matter was thereafter

Patna High Court SA No.343 of 1996 (13) dt.12-05-2016 2/2 adjourned for two weeks.

The office has pointed out that no vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the appellants.

As nobody appears on behalf of the appellants, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

(V. Nath, J) N.H./- U