IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2329 of 2009 ----------- Nakul Mallah, son of Biggu Mallah, resident of village Chhotka Kijhar, P.S. S. Kudra, District Rohtas. …. Petitioner Versus 1. Ram Gati Mallah, son of Anup Mallah 2. Ram Nagina 3. Lakhan 4. Ram Chander 5. Bharat (minor) Respondents no. 2 to 5 are sons of late Mallu Mallah, respondent no. 5, Minor under the guardianship of elder brother and next friend Ram Nagina All respondents no. 1 to 5 are resident of village Chhotkakijhar, P.S. Kudra, District Rohtas 6. Biggan Mallah, son of Jagrup Mallah, resident of village Chhotkakijhar, P.S. Kudra, District Rohtas 7. The State of Bihar, through Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram Rohtas 7(A). Collector of Rohtas at Sasaram 8. Anchaladhikari, Kudra, District Kudra …Respondents 2nd set- Opposite Parties ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Satya Prakash Srivastava, Advocate For Opp. Parties : None. ------ 03/ 04.05.2011 This M.J.C. petition has been filed for restoration of M.J.C. No. 2188 of 2008, which was dismissed for default due to non-compliance of peremptory order of this Court dated 02.03.2009, by which two weeks’ time was granted to the petitioner to comply the order of the Lawazima Board dated 16.09.2008 for removal of defects no. 1 and 2 of stamp report dated 30.08.2008. 2. The aforesaid M.J.C. No. 2188 of 2008 was filed for restoration of S.A. No. 10 of 1989, which was dismissed for default by order dated 05.08.2008 due to non- prosecution when no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. 2 It transpires that when the said second appeal was called out for final hearing on the previous date i.e. 26.06.2002 also, no one had appeared for the appellant and the matter was adjourned. . 3. However, considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the statements made in the petition, it transpires that the petitioner has been able to show genuine reasons due to which order dated 02.03.2009 passed in M.J.C. No. 2188 of 2008 was not complied within time. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order has been subsequently complied. 4. In the said circumstances, this M.J.C. petition is allowed and M.J.C. No. 2188 of 2008 is restored to its original file and number . However, this order will be subject to deposit of cost of Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees five thousand ) by the petitioner with the High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna within one month from today. 5. It may be noted that if this order is not complied by the petitioner within the aforesaid time, no further extension of time shall be granted and apart from this M.J.C. No. 2329 of 2009, other cases, namely, M.J.C. No. 2188 of 2008 and S.A. No. 10 of 1989 shall remain finally dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )