IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.82 of 2008 RAM KRISHNA THAKUR Versus OM PRAKASH THAKUR & ORS ----------- 3/ 6-Aug-08 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party. It appears that peremptory time was granted on 1.11.2007 in C.R. No.465 of 2006 for bringing on record heirs of O.P.No.4 who was reported to be dead. The order could not be complied with due to non receipt of letters by the petitioner. Now, a petition has been filed for restoring the Civil Revision application in respect of O.P. No.4 but in Paragraph- 7 it has been stated that O.P. No.4, Tilak Thakur has passed away unmarried on 25.1.2007 without leaving any heirs and hence a separate petition has been filed for deleting his name from the list of parties in the aforesaid Civil Revision. 2 Considering all the facts and circumstances, the prayer is allowed by observing that the peremptory order dated 1.11.2007 shall not be treated as peremptory and the revision application shall not be treated as dismissed against O.P. No.4, till the application for deleting the name of O.P. No.4 is considered on its own merits. Such application is said to have been filed as I.A. No.111 of 2008 on 8th January, 2008. Let that I.A. be considered by the appropriate Bench. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)