IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.51 of 1994 STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR, KATIHAR. …………………DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT. Versus 1. SANJEEV KUMAR SRIVASTAVA. 2. VIJOY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA. 3. SUBHASH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA. ALL ARE SONS OF LATE GANGA PRASAD SINHA. 4. GITA SRIVASTAVA. 5. KIRAN SRIVASTAVA. 6. PUNAM KUMARI. ALL ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE GANGA PRASAD SINHA. 7. SHAKUNTLA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE GANGA PRASAD SINHA. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MANIHARI, P.S. MANIHARI, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. …………PLAINTIFFS RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. UNION OF INDIA(THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) …………...DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. ----------- 17. 2.11.2010. No one appears on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Ratan Kumar Sinha, learned counsel, is present on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 7. The office has forwarded a note dated 8.9.2010 stating that this appeal has already stood dismissed as against the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 due to non compliance of the order dated 11.2.2010. When this matter was taken up on 13.9.2010, none had appeared on behalf of the appellant while learned counsel 2 for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 7 was present. The matter was adjourned for 20th of September, 2010. When the matter was again taken up on 21.9.2010, Mr. Narmadeshwar Jha, learned counsel, appeared on behalf of the appellant and sought adjournment. On his prayer, the matter was adjourned for four weeks. Again this matter was taken up on 26.10.2010, however, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, the State of Bihar through the Collector, Katihar. Again the matter was adjourned for 2nd of November, 2010. Today also none appeared on behalf of the appellant while learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 7 is present. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 7 submitted that this case has already stood dismissed as against the Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 due to non compliance of the order dated 11.2.2010 as pointed out by the office. It is further submitted that Title Suit No.62 of 1989 had been filed by one Ganga Prasad Sinha for declaration that the plaintiff has got valid title over the suit land as a raiyat under defendant no.1, i.e., the State of Bihar and further for declaration that the defendants have got no right, title and interest over the suit land. Further 3 declaration was sought that the rent payable for the suit land to the defendant no.1 is to the extent of Rs.3 and 4 Annas and odd besides the cess and the defendant no.1 is entitled to receive the rent from the plaintiff on grant of rent receipts. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff, Ganga Prasad Sinha, died and in his place, his legal representatives were substituted. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are sons of Late Ganga Prasad Sinha whereas Respondent Nos.4 to 6 are his daughters whereas Respondent No.7 is his widow. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 7 submitted that the trial court has decreed the suit and the lower appellate court in an appeal, preferred by the State of Bihar, has affirmed the same and the appeal has been dismissed. The State of Bihar has preferred this Second Appeal. Learned counsel contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case there is a possibility of conflicting decree as in case appeal is allowed, the same would remain dismissed as against the three of the plaintiff-respondents against whom it stands already dismissed. In the above view of the matter, it is submitted that this appeal is not competent to proceed with in view of the aforesaid fact. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf 4 of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 7. Though several adjournments have been granted to the State of Bihar, no one has appeared except on one occasion, i.e., on 21.9.2010. No step for rectification could also be taken. Thus, in my opinion, there would definitely be a possibility of conflicting decree if the appeal is allowed as the same would remain dismissed against the plaintiff-Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 7. As a result, this appeal is declared to be incompetent to proceed with and, thus, is dismissed. Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)