IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1368 of 2008 BUCHAI THAKUR & ANR Versus BASUDEO PRASAD SULTANIA & ORS ----------- 3 25.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants in respect of his prayer for restoration of Second Appeal No.138 of 1995 in respect of respondents no.30, 31 and 32. Nobody appears on behalf of other parties. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that because of inadvertent error requisites for notice against respondents pursuant to peremptory order dated 19.11.1999 was filed only against respondents no.1 to 29 and this mistake led to dismissal of the appeal against respondents no.30, 31 and 32. It has been submitted that office never communicated the fact of such dismissal of appeal to the counsel for the appellants and only after inspection in the year 2008 this fact came to be known and thereafter requisites for issuance of notice against respondents no.30, 31 and 32 have been filed which may be accepted after restoring the appeal against respondents no.30, 31 and 32. On considering all the facts and the submissions this Court finds that in fact respondents no.30 and 31 were added subsequently by hand and the plea of mistake appears to 2 be bona fide. Hence, the prayer for restoration is allowed. This MJC application is accordingly disposed of. Let notices be issued to respondents no.30, 31 and 32 for which requisites appear to have been filed already. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk