IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.888 of 2007 1. Paras Nath Paras Nath Prasad son of Late lachhuman Ji @ Pratap Misra. 2. Pasupati Nath, son of late Lachhuman ji @ Pratap mishra 3. Prabhawati Devi, daughter of Late Lachhuman Ji @ Pratap Mishra. 4. Lilawati Devi, daughter of Late lachhuman Ji @ Pratap Mishra. All residents of Mohalla-Purani Chowk, Ward No.1, P.S. Gopalganj. ……..Plaintiffs/Appellants/Opposite Parties/Petitioners. Versus 1. Kalawati Devi wife of Late Gorakh Rai 2. Hare Krishna Rai, son of Late Gorakh Rai. 3. Kamal Kumari Sinha, wife of late Ram Krishna Rai. 4. Rajat Kumar Rai, son of Late Ram Krishna Rai. 5. Shruti Kumari, Minor daughter of Later Ram Krishna Rai, through her natural guardian and mother Kamal Kumari Sinha (O.P. No. 3) 6. Arbind Rai, son of Late Gorakh Rai. 7. Uma Devi Daughter of late Gorakh Rai 8. Usha Devi, daughter of Late Gorakh Rai 9. Asha Devi, Daughter of Late Gorakh Rai 10. Bebi Devi, daughter of Late Gorakh Rai. All residents of village-Kararia, P.S. Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj at Present resident of Mohalla-Sareya, Ward No. 5, (Near Minz Stadium), P.O. & P.S. Gopalganj, District-Gopalganj. Defendants/Respondents/Petitioners/Opp. Party. ----------- 6. 17.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 13.02.2007 by which the petition filed by the opposite parties-respondents under Order 41 Rule 21 C.P.C. in T.A. No. 23 of 1971 has been allowed and the judgement 2 and decree passed in the appeal has been recalled and thereafter the appeal has been placed for re-hearing. From the impugned order it appears that learned Court below elaborately considered different dates of the appeal as well as the notices issued therein and has come to the finding that the notice sent on the respondent did not contain any date for their appearance in the Court and thereafter it has been further found that the Court before taking up the appeal for ex-parte hearing has not declared the service of notice as valid as per the provision of the Order 5 Rule 19 C.P.C. On the basis of aforesaid finding, the learned Court below has come to the conclusion that the respondents were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the appeal on the date of hearing. The aforesaid finding is a finding of fact and no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the same could be established by the petitioners. This revision application is accordingly dismissed. Considering the fact that the appeal has arisen out of a suit of the year 1964 and the matter is lingering for so 3 many years, the Appellate Court below is directed to take up the hearing of the appeal and dispose it of expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of production / receipt of this order. The parties i.e. the petitioners and opposite parties have agreed that they will be cooperative in hearing and disposal of the appeal and will not take unnecessary adjournments. Saif/- (V. Nath, J.)