IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.67 of 2011 ----------- 1. Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam @ Tootoo Imam, son of Late Mr. Syed Hasan Imam 2. Syed Hasan Francis Imam, son of Mr. Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam, Both residents of KEHILAN, village Kesura, Sub-P.O. Rola, under Head Post Office Hazaribagh, P.S. Mofussil, Hazaribagh, District Haazaribagh (Jharkhand) …Defendants-Petitioners Versus 1. Faiz Murtaza Ali, son of late Mr. Justice Syed Murtaza Fazal Ali, resident of 112, Udai Park, New Delhi. …Plaintiff-Opposite Party 2. Sri Syed Akabir Hussain, son of Syed Sakir Husjsain, resident of Mohalla Hussain Khan Serai, P.O. Sahbhal and District Muradabad(U.P.) 3. Jitendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate through Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam, resident of Konar Avenue, Ranchi, Hazaribagh, District Hazaribag ( as per the plaint in Title Suit No. 71 of 2000, Patna). …. Defendant-Opposite Party ---- For the petitioners : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Senior Advocate, Mr. Dilip Kumar and Mr. Abnish Kumar, Advocates. For the Opposite Parties : None. ------ 02/ 23.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This M.J.C. case has been filed for modification in paragraph no.5 of order dated 08.09.2009 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 316 of 2007. 3. Although in the said paragraph of order dated 08.09.2009, it was observed that “so far opposite party no.3 is concerned, he is an Advocate of the petitioners in the court below at Hazaribagh and hence learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no further notice is required to be sent to him either”, but now learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners of 2 this M.J.C. case were also petitioners in the said civil revision and their counsel had never stated that opposite party no.3 of the said civil revision was the petitioners’ Advocate in the court below at Hazaribagh. He also denies that opposite party no.3 of the said civil revision was their Advocate at any stage in the court below at Hazaribagh.. However, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that he had submitted before this Court while hearing Civil Revision No. 316 of 2007 on 08.09.2009 that no further notice was required to be sent to opposite party no.3 of that civil revision either. 4. In the said circumstances, submission that opposite party no.3 of the said civil revision was the petitioners’ Advocate in the court below at Hazaribagh, either advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners or by learned counsel for the opposite parties, hardly matters. From the said order, it transpires that it were the opposite parties, who had stated that opposite party no.3 of the said civil revision was the petitioners’ Advocate in the court below at Hazaribagh and taking advantage of the said submission learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that no notice was required to be sent to him either. 5. Thus, the said order dated 08.09.2009 passed in Civil Revision No. 316 of 2007 requires no modification and, accordingly, this M.J.C. case is disposed of. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )