IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.110 of 2011 RAJENDRA PRASAD & ORS . Versus SMT. KANCHAN DEVI & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. D.K. Sinha, Senior Adv. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Kumar Rajesh, Adv. ------------- 2. 04.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they were respondent nos. 6, 7 and 9 in C.W.J.C. No. 11270 of 2009. They were not heard before the final order dated 3.3.2011, came to be passed. The very opening paragraph of the order dated 3.3.2011 notices that despite valid service of notice respondent nos. 6 to 11 had not entered appearance at their own peril. The fact that the petitioners may deny receipt of notice is hardly relevant at this stage. However, the Court permitted the counsel for the petitioners to make submissions so that the justice may not be allowed to suffer. It has been submitted that after restoration of Title Suit No. 94 of 1994 was declined finally, Miscellaneous appeal has been filed in which the writ petitioners had also entered appearance and 2 therefore an incorrect submission had been made that no litigation was pending before the parties. That has to be construed in the background of the controversy with regard to possession noticed in the order of the writ Court. It cannot be said that the writ petitioners obtained any order from the Court by misrepresentation. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously sought to persuade the Court that the writ petitioners were not in possession of the lands but that the petitioners were in possession, therefore the order for police protection was not sustainable. The Court permitted the petitioners to place the order dated 26.6.1995 in Mutation Appeal No. 17 of 1993-94 again. Learned counsel for the petitioners finds it difficult to answer the definitive finding therein that the writ petitioners were in possession. It is acknowledged that the petitioners have not questioned the order in Mutation Appeal No. 17 of 1993-94, which has attained finality. The Court finds no reason to interfere in review jurisdiction. What the petitioner may propose to do or not to do in context of the order of 3 the mutation appeal is for them to decide. The Court only observes that matters shall have to be considered only and strictly in accordance with law. The application stands dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)