IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8014 of 2010 1. MEERA DEVI D/O SRI RAM SINGH, W/O RAJ KISHOR SINGH R/O VILL BAGHARRA, P.O. & P.S.BAGHARI, DISTT-DARBHANGA 2. HEERA DEVI D/O SRI RAM SINGH, W/O BHULLU SINGH R/O VILL MANJHAUL, P.S. MANJHAUL, DISTT-BEGUSARAI Versus 1. BIMLA DEVI D/O RAMSWAROOP SINGH, W/O SHYAM SINGH R/O VILL MOHANPUR, P.S. MUFFFASIL , DISTT-BEGUSARAI 2. RAM KUMAR SINGH S/O RAM SWAROOP SINGH R/O VILL PANSAL, PRAGANA-BALIA, P.S.& DISTT-BEGUSARAI 3. CHUNCHUN YADAV S/O ASHARFI YADAV R/O VILL PANSALA, P.S.SUB-DIVISION & DISTT-BEGUSARAI 4. RAJGIR YADAV S/O CHUNCHUN YADAV R/O VILL PANSALA, P.S.SUB-DIVISION & DISTT-BEGUSARAI 5. CHAMRU YADAV S/O LATE SRI NATHO YADAV R/O VILL PANSALA, P.S.SUB-DIVISION & DISTT-BEGUSARAI 6. ASHOK YADAV S/O CHAMRU YADAV R/O VILL PANSALA, P.S.SUB-DIVISION & DISTT- BEGUSARAI 7. KARI YADAV MINOR SON OF CHUMRU YADAV UNDER THE GURARDIANSHIP OF HIS FATHER CHUMRU YADAV R/O VILL PANSALA, P.S.SUB-DIVISION & DISTT-BEGUSARAI 8. NAVIN KUMAR S/O SRI RAM SINGH R/O VILL PANSALA, P.S. & DISTT-BEGUSARAI 9. SRIMATI SUSHILA DEVI W/O SRI PASUPATI PD. SINGH R/O VILL AHMADPUR, P.S.SAREA, PARGANA, DISTT-DARBHANGA 10. SRIMATI URMILA DEVI W/O SRI KAUSHAN KISHORE THAKUR R/O VILL AGA NAGAR, P.S. & DISTT-MUZAFFARPUR 11. SRIMATI SHEELA DEVI W/O BALMIKI SINGH R/O VILL MAHSORAN, P.S.LAKHISARAI, DISTT-MUNGER ----------- 2/ 17/03/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners are stated to be the legal heirs substituted after the death of the original deceased defendant No.6. To compel their appearance after the death of defendant No.6 on 13.1.2005, substituted service by publication was resorted to on 29.8.2006. The petitioners entered appearance in the suit only on 7.11.2008 which was allowed, questioned in revision before this Court when the matter was remanded to the trial court again leading to the fresh order dated 25.1.2010. 2 The trial court holds that “ the defendants have not explained any good cause for their previous non-appearance”. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed before this Court a copy of the application filed on 3.9.2008 before the trial court on behalf of the petitioners. It is cryptic in 2 to 3 lines each of five paragraphs. A bald statement has been made that they had no knowledge of the suit and would have appeared if they had. There is no disclosure of the date of knowledge, source of knowledge which led them to enter appearance. The claim that notice or summons was not served loses relevance in view of paper publication which stands admitted. The Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article-227 of the Constitution of India finds no reason calling for interference with the consideration done by the trial court in the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering that the suit be of the year- 1999, the Court considers it proper to give directions that it may be expedited. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)