IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.691 of 2006 CHALITAR PASWAN @ CHALITAR PAS Versus RAJ KUMAR SINGH & ORS ----------- 2 14.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. Negligence also has some limit. In the present case, the suit came to be filed in the year 1993. This suit was ultimately dismissed for default in the month of August, 2003. Therefore, a miscellaneous case was filed. In the miscellaneous case, notices were issued to as many as 49 contesting opposite parties through substituted service as is apparent from Annexure-2 itself. The said miscellaneous case also after affecting substituted service of notices on all the forty-nine opposite parties came to be again dismissed for default on 21.1.2006. Now a civil revision application has been filed questioning the aforesaid impugned order dated 21.1.2006 refusing to restore the Miscellaneous Case and surprisingly, neither the Counsel for the petitioner is aware as to what is the nature of the suit property nor he is in a position to explain as to why out of 49 opposite parties only 10 of them have been impleaded as opposite parties to this civil revision application. It only goes to show that either there is absolutely no lis left in the matter or the petitioner has no interest in the restoration of the main case. The prayer for restoration of the 2 miscellaneous case appears to be only a gimmick to keep the matter pending. The impugned order of the Court below thus is not vitiated by any jurisdictional error. In such circumstances, this Civil Revision Application must be and is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)