Suman Sharma v. Sunil Sharma And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.948 of 2017 In CIVIL REVISION No.909 of 2007 ====================================================== Suman Sharma Son of Sri Deep Narayan Sharma, resident of VillageGopalpur, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Sunil Sharma 2.

Amar Nath Sharma, Both sons of Shri Deep Narayan Sharma, 3.

Deep Narayan Sharma, son of Late Yadu Nandan Sharma, All residents of Village- Gopalpur, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur. 4.

Dinesh Sharma, Son of Late Bhola Sharma, resident of Village- Gopalpur, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur.

5.

Bishnu Bhagat, son of Late Ramotar Bhagat, resident of Village- Surgthiya Bazar, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur.

6.

Anil Kumar Singh, 7.

Ajay KumarSingh, 8.

Sanjay Kumar Singh, 9.

Rajiv Ranjan Singh, All sons of Late Gopi Prasad Singh, All residents of Village- Kothi Tola, Gopalpur Sangthiya Bazar, P.S.- Gopalpur, DistrictBhagalpur. 10.

Mohd Rajjak, son of Cholti Rajak, resident of Village- Miyan Tola, Gopalpur P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur. 11.

Jicho Harijan, son of Binchu Harijan, resident of Village- Gopalpur, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur.

12.

Jageshwar Harijan, son of Late Tiwari Harijan, resident of VillageGopalpur, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur. 13.

Sunil Jaiswal, 14.

Abhay Jaiswal, 15.

Nirbhay Jaiswal, All sons of Yadunandan Sah, resident of Village- Sunthiya Bazar, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur.

16.

Raj Kishore Sah, son of Late Ambika Sah, resident of Village- Harnathchak, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

For the Opposite Party/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

Patna High Court MJC No.948 of 2017(4) dt.03-11-2023 2/2 03-11-2023 None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

2. The present application has been filed for restoration of Civil Revision No. 909 of 2007 which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 17.11.2011 passed by a Bench of this Court.

3. From the materials available on record, it appears that the Civil Revision No. 909 of 2007, which stood dismissed on 17.11.2011, the present restoration application has been filed in the year 2017, after a long delay of more than six years and now when the matter has been taken up, there is none to represent.

4. In the aforesaid fact, it appears that the petitioner has lost his interest in pursuing the present application. Hence, the restoration application stands dismissed. (Harish Kumar, J) Anjani/- U