IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.5058 of 2010 RAMAN KUMAR Versus ANUP KUMAR SARAN MINOR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Binoy Kumar, Advocate For Opp. Party No. 1: Mr. Anish Chandra Sinha, Advocate ----- 4 16.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party no. 1. This application is being heard and disposed of at this stage itself as requested by the parties. I.A. No. 1463 of 2011 has been filed for condoning the delay in preferring this application. Office has reported that there has been delay of 44 days. Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 1, however, at the time of argument learned counsel appearing for him vehemently opposed the limitation matter as well as restoration matter. However, for the reasons mentioned in aforesaid interlocutory application, this Court is of 2 the opinion that the petitioner was prevented from sufficient cause from preferring this petition within time. As a result, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay in filing this application is hereby condoned. Now I proceed to consider M.J.C. No. 5058 of 2010 on its own merit. This application has been filed for restoration of Civil Revision No. 22 of 2010, which stood dismissed for want of prosecution on 16.9.2010. On being satisfied with the sufficiency of reasons mentioned in this application for omission on part of the petitioner, the same is allowed and the Civil Revision No. 22 of 2010 is restored to its original file and number. Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)