IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.41 of 1993 MOST.GIRIJA DEVI & ORS Versus SIROMANY DEVI & ORS ----------- 15 1.7.2008 Defendants- appellants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15th of april,1993 passed by a learned Single Judge in First Appeal No.693 of 1976 have preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. No body appears either on behalf of the appellant or the respondents. When First Appeal No. 693 of 1976 was taken up on 22.7.1980 the Division Bench passed the following order:- “Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the application under Section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act and the counter affidavit of the appellants thereto. The learned Counsel for the parties agree that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appeal will abate in 2 2 respect to the suit properties excepting the properties mentioned in Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit of the appellants. The appeal should, therefore, proceed in respect to the properties described in Annexure-1 aforesaid. In view of the decision of Supreme Court in Gorakh Nath Dube V. Hari Narain Singh &others (AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2451), the decree passed by the Court below in regard to the other properties is set aside and the suit in the Court below and the present are held to have abated partially.” In view of aforesaid the appeal ought to have been adjudicated only in respect of the property as mentioned In Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit filed in response to the application filed for abatement of the appeal under Section 4(c ) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act. It seems that when the appeal was taken up for final hearing said order was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge and 3 3 arguments were advanced in respect of the entire property. Accordingly, by the impugned judgment and decree issues in relation to other properties have also been adjudicated. As no body has chosen to appear on behalf of the appellants, this appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad,J.) (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.) A.Kumar