IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.168 of 2009 Lal Babu Prasad, son of Late Laxmi Prasad by profession cultivation and business of Village-Siwan Sonar Toli, Shanti But Briksh, P.S. Siwan Town, P.O. Siwan, Pargana-Bara, District-Siwan. -- Defendant no.2- Appellant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Durga Narayan Prasad, son of Late Sukhdeo Prasad. 2. Chandrawati Devi, wife of Satya Narayan Prasad (deceased). 2(a)Rajiv Kumar 2(b)Ranjan Kumar Both sons of Late Satya Narayan Prasad. 3. Prabhu Narayan Prasad, son of Late Sukhdeo Prasad. 4. Rajesh Narayan Prasad, son of Late Sukhdeo Prasad Nos. 1 to 4 by profession cultivator of Village Kasawan, Siwan Mihiatoli, P.S. Siwan Town, P.O. Siwan, District-Siwan, Pargana Bara. 5. Chunmun Devi, wife of Binay Kumar, daughter of Late Sukhdeo Prasad, Mohalla- Pankha Toli, P.S Kaji Mohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur, Father’s Place Mehia Kumhar Toli, P.S. & P.O and District-Siwan. --Plaintiffs-Respondent 1st Set –Opposite party 1st Set. 6. Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Siwan. --Defendant 2nd Party-Respondent-Opposite party 2nd Set. For the petitioner : Mr. Harendra Tiwary, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 04/ 27.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed for review of order of this court dated 12.05.2009 by which S.A. No.06 of 2006 was dismissed on merits. 3. It transpires that there were two advocates, who had filed the said second appeal as far back as on 06.01.2006, but for one reason or the other it remained pending for about three years and when it was listed for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the 2 Code of Civil Procedure on 06.05.2009 no one appeared on behalf of the appellant and the case was adjourned as a last chance. 4. Thereafter when the case was called out on 11.05.2009 another learned counsel appeared on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant and again sought adjournment, this court expressly told him that since on 06.05.2009 last chance had been given, no further adjournment can be given and if he was not ready to assist this court, the second appeal would be dismissed for default. The said learned counsel chose to argue the case for sometimes, but thereafter he said that for further argument the case may be listed on another day. Thereafter the case was taken up on 12.05.2009, but neither learned counsel who had filed second appeal nor learned counsel who had made partial submissions was present and hence this court decided the second appeal on merits which had already been heard in part on the previous date. 5. Now this civil review petition has been filed for review of the said order claiming that the said counsel who had argued in part on 11.05.2009 was not the counsel for the appellant and he had argued on behalf of the appellant’s counsel only to get the case adjourned and hence he had no knowledge about the second appeal. It is also stated that on that date and also on the next date learned counsel for the appellant could not appear for the reasons of ailment, etc. of his relatives due to which the said order had been passed. 6. The entire submissions of learned counsel for the 3 petitioner appears to be absolutely frivolous as a misconceived as it is quite apparent from the entire records of the proceeding of the second appeal that the appellant having lost in both the learned courts below was merely dilly dallying the matter and was not interested in disposal of the second appeal, which was pending since last three years. 7. It is also apparent that the learned counsel who had argued on 11.05.2009 was appearing at the instance of learned counsel for the appellant himself and the court gave him an opportunity that since on the last date, last chance was given, either the case is argued or it would be dismissed for default. The said counsel chose himself to argue the case and hence the entire submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely baseless and is being made merely with a view to make up his own default for so many days. 8. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record nor does it find any fresh material to take a different view. Accordingly, this petition for review is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )