IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA FA No 733 of 1995 State Bank of India, a body corporate under State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its registered office at Bombay and Local Head Office Amongst other places at Judge’s Court Road, Patna designated as Local Head Office having its numerous branches in India including one at Agriculture Development Branch, Bettiah, P O and P S – Bettiah, Dist – West Champaran through Branch Manager, State Bank of India Agriculture Development Branch, Bettiah - Plaintiff - Appellant Versus 1 Messers Chaudhary Cold Storage and Fruit Preservation through Shri Banwari Lal Chaudhary, son of late Debidutt Choudhary, resident of Bettiah Town, Mohalla – Lal Bazar, PO & PS – Bettiah, District – West Champaran, Managing partner of Messrs Choudhary Cold Storage and Fruit Preservation, Mohalla – Hat Saraiya, PO & PS – Bettiah, Dist – West Champaran 2 Shri Babulal Choudhary, son of Nagar Mull Choudhary 3 Smt Panna Devi, wife of Shri Nagar Mull Choudhary 4 Smt Bhagwati Devi, widow of Late Debidutt Choudhary, residents of Bettiah Town, Mohalla – Lal Bazar, P O & P S – Bettiah, Dist – West Champaran 5 Smt Draupati Devi, wife of Purushottam Lall, resident of village – Ghodhardiha, P S – Phulparas, Dist – Madhubani - Defendant 01st Party - Respondent No 1 6 Smt Vidya Devi, wife of Shri Banwarila Choudhary 7 Rajesh Kumar Choudhary, son of late Sagar Mull Choudhary 8 Sri Ram Kishun Ram, son of late Gulab Ram, all residents of Bettiah Town, Mohalla – Lal Bazar, P O & P S – Bettiah, District – Paschim Champaran - Defendant No 2 - Respondent No 2 ----------- 12 29.10.2009 No one appears for the parties inspite of repeated calls. The Memo of Appeal stood dismissed against respondents No 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 by virtue of non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 23.07.2009. In view of the fact that appeal arises from a Mortgage Suit and in view of the fact that the appeal being dismissed as against respondents No 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8, the appeal itself becomes incompetent and is dismissed as a whole as continuing with it in absence of respondents No 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 would result in conflicting decrees. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh) 2