IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.138 of 2007 1. Vinod Kewat son of late Prayag Kewat 2. Mostt Yashoda wife of lat eBhikari Kewat Both are the resident of village-Sihala, P.S.- Dandkhora, Distt-Katihar … Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Deputy Collector land Revenue Katihar .. Respondent ----------- 6 05.05.2011 The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.01.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No.7030 of 2005 whereby the learned Single Judge has chosen to dismiss the writ petition in limine for not complying the orders passed in earlier occasion. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that on 15.05.2006, the learned Single Judge has passed an order directing the petitioner to serve a notice upon respondent no.3 in the writ petition and one week time was granted to deposit the requisites, but however as the same order could not be complied M.J.C. petition being M.J.C. No.1394 of 2006 was filed for modification of order dated 2 15.05.2006 passed in the writ petition. Thereafter, by order dated 13.07.2006, passed in M.J.C. No. 13394 of 2006 time for filing of requisites in both process i.e. ordinary process as well as registered cover was extended up to 21.06.2006, but only registered notice was filed on 23.06.2006. Thereafter another M.J.C. petition bearing M.J.C. No. 2081 of 2006 was filed for modification of the order dated 13.07.2006 passed in earlier M.J.C. No. 1394 of 2006 but the same was rejected by the learned Single Judge and when the writ petition has come up before the learned Single Judge for hearing the same was dismissed observing as follows :- “Mr. Bhola Prasad for the petitioners, and Ms. Archana Shahi, J.C to GP 14, are present. Perused the marginal note and heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears from the marginal note that the petitioners grossly abused the process of the Court repeatedly. It cannot proceed any further in the absence of the concerned respondent. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.” 3 Aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been filed. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that learned Single Judge ought not have to dismiss the writ petition in limine against respondent no.2 for none compliance of the order passed by this Court. Having heard both sides, we are of the opinion that as the notice could not be served on respondent no.3, the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition as against respondent no.3 it has chosen to dismiss the whole writ petition in limine and not inclined to hear the matter on merits when other respondents are represented through their respective counsels. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the order dated 18.01.2007 passed by learned Single Judge with an observation that as the notice was not served only on respondent no.3 according to the records, the writ petition should be dismissed as 4 against respondent no.3, only and not the writ petition as a whole as other respondents were represented, and hence, the writ petition has to be heard on merits. With the above modification in the order dated 18.01.2007 passed by learned Single Judge, this L.P.A. is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for hearing the matter afresh on merits. Registry is directed to list the matter before the learned Single Judge having roster on the subject. Ashwini (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)