IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No. 271 of 2008 With M.J.C. No. 3075 of 2009 DINESH SHARMA, son of late Basudeo Sharma, resident of village + P.O. Painal, P.S. Bihta, district Patna, at present posted as Personal Assistant to Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Marg, Patna – 15. .. Appellant-Petitioner in both the cases Versus 1. DAMODAR PRASAD, son of Sri Sukhdeo Prasad, resident of village Chatterbigha, P.S. Bind, district Nalanda at present residing at 17/589, L.I.G. Mohalla Hanuman Nagar, P.S. Patrakar Nagar (Kankarbagh), district Patna at present posted as Personal Assistant to Chief Engineer, the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna .. Writ Petitioner-Respondent in both the cases 2. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Building Construction and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan, Patna 3. Deputy Secretary, Department of Building Construction and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan, Patna 4. Bihar State Housing Board through its Managing Director, 6 Sardar Patel Marg, Patna – 15 5. Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board through its Managing Director, 6 Sardar Patel Marg, Patna – 15 6. Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board through its Managing Director, 6 Sardar Patel Marg, Patna – 15 7. Superintending Engineering, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Sardar Patel Marg, Patna – 15 ... Respondents in both the cases ----------- 6 21 -04-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. For the reasons mentioned in the restoration application, the prayer for restoration is allowed and Civil Review No. 271/2008 is restored to its original file. As noted in the order dated 31-3-2010 passed in the restoration application (M.J.C. No. 3075/2009), the 2 review petition is also taken up for hearing at the admission stage. Heard on merits. This review petition has been preferred seeking review of order dated 23-9-2008 passed by a Division Bench of this court whereby a Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 1316/2005 was dismissed after considering the sole submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that he had not been heard by the learned Single Judge before passing the order under appeal in that Letters Patent Appeal. This contention was considered and found to be devoid of any substance after noticing relevant part of the order under appeal wherein the contention of learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 (petitioner herein) had been noted by the learned Single Judge. In the facts of the case, we find no good reason to accept the similar submission advanced before us. The review petition is found to be devoid of any merits. It is dismissed accordingly. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (C. M. Prasad, J.)