IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA FA No.490 of 1994 SMT. DULARI DEVI @ RAM DULARI DEVI, WIFE OF PRABHASH CHANDRA BARNWAL, RESIDENT OF RAXAUL, P.S. RAXAUL, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN (DEFENDANT NO.5 IN THE COURT BELOW)-----APPELLANT Versus 1. SUBHASH CHANDRA PRASAD, SON OF SHRI GULAB CHAND PRASAD(PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT BELOW) 2. GULAB CHAND PRASAD, SON OF LATE SRI RAGHUBIR RAM 3. PRABHASH CHANDRA BARNWAL 4. DINESH CHANDRA BARNWAL 5. RAKESH CHANDRA BARNWAL ALL SONS OF SHRI GULAB CHANDRA PRASAD (NOS. 3 TO 5 ARE DEFENDANTS IN THE COURTBELOW) ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE AND P.S. RAXAUL, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 6. PRAMILA DEVI WIFE OF GOVIND PRASAD, RESIDENT OF SECTOR-2, BOKARO STEAL CITY, DISTRICT BOKARO 7. URMILA DEVI, WIFE OF VIJAY KR. BARNWAL, RESIDENT OF HINDU BAZAR GORAKHPUR, DISTRICT GORAKHPUR(U.P.) -------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 23. 20.03.2009. None appears for the appellant. Same was the position even on yesterday and on 9.9.2008. From the office note dated 4.12.2008 it appears that the appeal stood dismissed as against respondent no.6 for non-compliance of order no. 21 dated 9.9.2008. Office has posed a question as to whether after dismissal of appeal against respondent no. 6, the whole appeal has become incompetent. Counsel for the respondents states that the present appeal arise out of a preliminary partition decree and appeal having been dismissed against respondent no.6, the same has become incompetent as against remaining respondents. He also informs this Court that after passing of the impugned preliminary decree, the court below has also passed final decree, which has not been questioned. As the appeal has been dismissed against respondent no. 6, the same has become incompetent against the remaining respondents and is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha,J.) - 2 -