IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1138 of 2009 KAMESHWAR JHA son of late Ganesh Jha, resident of village and P.O.- Misraulia, PS Babu Barhi, District Madhubani. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Special Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. The District Collector, Madhubani 4. Additional Collector (ceiling) Collectorate, Madhubani 5. Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Madhubani 6. Anchal Adhikari, Babu Barhi, At+ PO+ PS Babu Barhi, District Madhubani ----------- 2 01-09-2009 Heard the parties in the limitation matter as well as on merits. Considering the explanation furnished in the limitation petition (I.A. No. 5582/2009) the delay of 158 days in preferring this appeal is condoned. I.A. stands disposed of. On merits learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the facts available in the records of CWJC no. 13006/2007 which show that on 30-01-2009 peremptory time of one week was granted to take steps for notice upon respondents no. 7 to 10. Talbana etc. required for notice were filed within time granted but only in respect of respondents no. 8 to 10. However, the office wrongly reported that the writ petition stood dismissed against all the respondents, i.e., no. 7 to 10. Considering such office note on 16-2-2009 the writ court recorded the order that since writ petition stood dismissed against respondents no. 7 to 10 hence, it had become incompetent and could not proceed against other respondents alone in absence 2 of respondents no. 7 to 10. On that ground the writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, counsel for the writ petitioner took steps by filing MJC no. 859/2009 for restoration of writ petition in respect of respondents no. 7 to 10 but the same was dismissed by order contained in annexure-2 to this LPA on the ground that since the writ petition had been disposed of on merits hence, restoration application could not be maintainable. In the facts noticed above, we find that the writ petition could not have been treated as dismissed against respondents no. 8 to 10. It is further found that on that account and also on account of the fact that writ petitioner wanted to get the writ petition restored in respect of concerned respondents, the writ petition could not have been dismissed on 16-2-2009 without affording the opportunity to the counsel for the writ petitioner to file an application for restoration of the writ petition in respect of concerned respondents. For the aforesaid reasons the order under appeal dated 16-2-2009 dismissing the writ petition, i.e., CWJC no. 13006/2007, cannot be sustained. The said order is, therefore, set aside. In the peculiar facts of the case, while remitting the matter back for being considered by the appropriate Bench, we make it clear that after considering the relevant facts if the writ court is inclined, in the interest of justice, it may grant another opportunity to the appellant/writ petitioner to file restoration 3 application in respect of respondent no.7. The writ petition will be treated as not dismissed in respect of respondents no. 8 to 10. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)