IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.265 of 2009 PARSHURAM YADAV, SON OF SANCHIT YADAV, OWNER OF JEEP, R/V EKMA TOLA BISHUNPURA, P.S. EKMA, DISTRICT SARAN----------PETITIONER. Versus 1. SUMITRA DEVI, WIFE OF BALIRAM SHARMA, MOTHER OF THE DECEASED. 2. BALIRAM SHARMA, SON OF PARAS NATH SHARMA 3. ASHA KUMARI 4. SOBHA KUMARI 5. MAMTA KUMARI ALL(3 TO 5) DAUGHTERS OF BALIRAM SHARMA 6. BINAY KUMAR SHARMA, SON OF BALIRAM SHARMA ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE JALALPUR KE TOLA BAUNAGANJ, P.O. JALALPUR, P.S. DARAUNDA, DISTRICT SIWAN----------CLAIMANTS NOS. 1 TO 6/RESPONDENTS. WITH MJC No.2092 of 2008 PARSURAM YADAV-------------PETITIONER Versus SUMITRA DEVI & ORS-----------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 05. 18.04.2009. M.J.C. Nos. 2092 of 2008 and 265 of 2009 have been filed to restore M.A. No. 470 of 2002. It appears earlier the said Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed against respondent no.7 on account of non-compliance of the order dated 10.4.2008. Four months thereafter on 13.8.2008, M.J.C. No. 2092 of 2008 was filed to restore the Miscellaneous Appeal. On 23.9.2008 the appeal was dismissed for default and three months thereafter M.J.C. No. 265 of 2009 was filed on 22.1.2009 to restore the same to its original file and number. When the two restoration applications were taken up by this Court yesterday i.e. 17.4.2009, this Court called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to deposit the award amount in the office of this Court and in consideration thereof both the restoration applications may be allowed, the appeal restored to its original file and - 2 - number. The counsel sought time to seek instruction in the matter. The matter was passed over for the day on 17.4.2009 with clear understanding that if required answer is not given tomorrow, the restoration application shall be rejected. Today, counsel has chosen not to appear before this Court. In the circumstances, this Court has no option but to dismiss the restoration applications for want of prosecution. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha,J.)