IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.44 of 2010 PUSHPA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 2 31.3.2010 Heard the parties. It has been explained that peremptory order dated 8.9.2009 was misunderstood by the counsel for the petitioner and therefore, instead of requisites for notice upon respondent no.7, requisites were filed for notice upon respondent no.8 but within time. In the facts of the case, the prayer for restoration of the case in respect of respondent no.7 is allowed. As a result, CWJC NO.14602 of 2006 shall stand restored in respect of respondent no.7 provided requisites for notice upon respondent no.7 under registered cover with A/d are filed in the office by 5th April, 2010. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.) sk