Sri Kishun Bind And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3456 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13693 of 2012 ======================================================

1. Sri Kishun Bind

2. Hridya Bind,

3. Hardwar Bind, All sons of Late Deep Chand Bind

4. Ram Prasad Bind, son of Late Bhikhnu Bind,

5. Roop Chand Bind, son of Late Sobhit Bind,

6. Lalan Bind,

7. Ram Karan Bind Both sons of late Bhikhany Bind.

All residents of Village- Sarsati Bara, P.O.- Itarhi, P.S. Itarhi, District- Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Additional Collector, Buxar

3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Buxar.

4. Gopal Jee Keshari, son of Shiv Prasad Keshari.

5. Shankar Keshari, son of Late Saryu Prasad Keshri

6. Jiut Bandhan Keshari, son of Sarju Prasad Keshari. All 4 to 6 are residents of Village- Sarsati Bara, P.O.- Itarhi, P.S. Itarhi, District- Buxar

7. Jungali Bind,

8. Ram Nath Bind @ Narain Bind All son of Late Khakhnu Bind Nos. 7 to 8 are residents of Village- Sarsati Bara, P.O.- Itarhi, P.S. Itarhi, District- Buxar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rudrank Shivam Singh, Advocate For Opp. Party No. 4 to 7:

Mr. Sanjay Singh, Sr. Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 31-08-2023 None appears on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned senior counsel for the opposite party nos. 4 to 7, is present.

3. From the records, it appears that the present contempt application has been preferred for restoration of

Patna High Court MJC No.3456 of 2016(5) dt.31-08-2023 2/2 C.W.J.C. No. 13693 of 2012, which stood dismissed on 09.08.2016 itself and soon thereafter, the present restoration application has been filed. However, despite the defects being pointed out by the office, the same has not been removed till 31.07.2023 and as such this Court had allowed further two weeks' time to remove the defects, as pointed by the office, failing which the application shall stand rejected without further reference to the Bench.

4. On the last occasion also when the matter was taken up, time was taken on the ground of indisposition of learned arguing counsel. However, today there is none to represent the petitioners.

5. In view thereof, the present restoration application stands dismissed.

(Harish Kumar, J) uday/- U