Patna High CourtC.R./919/2009dismissed

Jabbar Mian v. Chulahi Manjhi And ORS

2015-09-23Mr. Justice V. Nath2 pages

Patna High Court C.R. No.919 of 2009 (27) dt.23-09-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Revision No.919 of 2009 ====================================================== Jabbar Mian, Son of Late Chamari Mian, Resident of Village-Fulchodh, P.S.- Ariari, Post-Chodargah, District- Sheikhpura. -Plaintiff/Petitioner.

Versus

1. Chulahi Manjhi, Son of Late Shukar Manjhi.

2. Rajo Yadav, son of Late Jagho Yadav, Resident of Village-Fulchodh, P.S.- Ariari, District- Sheikhpura.

3. Md. Tahir.

4. Md. Mjslim.

Both Sons of Late Daroga Mian.

5. Marium D/o Late Daroga Mian and W/o Sukant. All Resident of Village-Fulchadh, P.S.- Ariari, District- Sheikhpura.

6. Pari Devi W/o Kameshwar Yadav.

7. Umesh Yadav.

8. Arbind Yadav.

9. Pocha Yadav.

All are sons of Late Kameshwar Yadav.

All are Resident of Village-Fulchodh, P.S.- Ariari, District- Sheikhpura.

10. Prakash Yadav, son of Pyare Yadav.

11. Ghangru Yadav, Son of Shiyar Yadav.

12. Tulak Yadav, Son of Late Saukhi Yadav.

13. Siyaram Yadav, Son of Prayag Yadav.

14. Guru Charan Yadav, son of Muneshwar Yadav. All Resident of Village-Fulchodh, P.S.- Ariari, District- Sheikhpura. -Defendant/Opposite Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mr. Radha Mohan Pandey For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER

Patna High Court C.R. No.919 of 2009 (27) dt.23-09-2015 23-09-2015 No body has again appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

From the order sheet it transpires that from the last two occasions, no body is appearing on behalf of the petitioners. From the office note it appears that this revision application stood dismissed for default against the opposite parties.

From the records it is manifest that the plaintiff in the suit is petitioner in this revision application and the opposite party no.8 was one of the defendants in the suit. After the dismissal of this revision application as against the opposite party no.8, this revision application cannot proceed with the remaining defendants as opposite parties on record. As there is chance of inconsistent orders, this revision application is, therefore, dismissed as incompetent.

(V. Nath, J) Nitesh/- U