IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.148 of 2007. Most.Sita Devi @ Sita Devi, wife of Late Shri Rajeshwar Singh, R/o village and P.O. silauri,P.s.Marhourqa, District-Saran---- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Basmati Devi wife of late Teni Rai 3. Hira Lal Rai son of Late Teni Rai 4. Moti Lal son of late Teni Rai 5. Kalawati Devi D/o late Teni Rai 6. Kalindi Devi W/o late Raj Balam Singh 7. Dudhnath Singh 8. Akhileshwar Singh 9. Tenku Singh 10. Kamlesh Singh 11. Raj Kishore Singh, all resident of Village and P.O. Silauri,P.s.Marhoura, District-Saran 12. Smt. Radhika Devi wife of Ramjee Mahato, R/o village Katasa,P.O. and P.S.Garkha,Distt-Saran 13. Smt. Lalita Devi wife of Birendra Prasad, of village Korwa, P.O. and P.s.Masarak, Distt- Saran 14. Smt.Savita Devi wife of Deepak Mahto, resident of village and P.O. Basautha,P.s.Garkha, distt-Saran 15. Sushree Babooni daughter of late Raj Balam Singh resident of village Silhauri,P.S.Marhaoura,Distt- Saran, 16. Additional Collector, Saran 17. Additional Member, Board of revenue, Patna. Respondents. ----- For the appellant : Mr. Shashi Shkhar Duiwedi Senior Advocate with Mr. R.S.Duiwedi For the respondents: None. ------- 5. 08.7.2009. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The delay of 13 days in filing the review application is hereby condoned. 2 This review application under Order 47, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant of L.P.A.No.435 of 1998 (Sita Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & ors), for recall of the order dated 24.5.2007, whereby the appeal was dismissed because it could not proceed in the absence of respondent no.2 against whom the appeal had stood dismissed on account of non-compliance of the peremptory order of the court. The writ petitioner had filed an application under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, seeking pre-emption with respect to the land in question on the ground that she was an adjacent raiyat. The matter travelled to the Board of Revenue, and it was held that neither the pre- emptor (the writ petitioner), nor the purchaser, was an adjacent raiyat and, therefore, the writ petitioner‟s claim for pre- emption must fail. The petitioner challenged the Board‟s order by preferring C.W.J.C.No.4546 of 1996 (Sita Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & ors), which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 3.3.1998. 3 The writ petitioner then preferred L.P.A.No.435 of 1998, which was admitted by order dated 18.11.1998, with the direction to the appellant to take steps for issuance of notices to the respondents. Thereafter, on 2.8.1999, this Court passed peremptory order directing the appellant to take steps for fresh service of notices upon respondent nos.2 and 4, as well as to take steps for substitution of heirs of respondent no.3. The appellant did not comply with the order dated 2.8.1999. The appeal ultimately stood dismissed against respondent nos.2 and 4, and also against the proposed heirs of respondent no.3. The matter was ultimately taken up for final disposal on 24.5.200, and it has been held by the impugned order that the appeal stood dismissed on the ground that the petitioner‟s claim of pre- emption was against respondent no.2, against whom the appeal already stood dismissed, the same cannot be heard in his absence. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 2.8.1999, the matter should have been placed under the heading ” For orders”, rather than for „Hearing‟. He further 4 submits that the appellant had filed I.A.No.4682 of 2003, stating therein that respondent no.2 had died on 29.10.2002, and, therefore, his name may be expunged and be substituted by his heirs. The application was never heard and, therefore, the order of dismissal of appeal may be recalled, and the entire matter may be reconsidered. He relies on a Single Judge judgment of this court in the case of Kirat Roy Vs. Guneshwawr Rai and others reported in 1978 BLJ 132, with respect to the scope of review jurisdiction of this Court. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is correct to state that heirs of respondent no.2 had filed I.A.No.4682 of 2003 under the provisions of Order 22, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying therein to expunge the name of respondent no.2, and be substituted by them. But the same was filed in this Court on 23.10.2003, much after the peremptory order dated 2.8.1999, directing the appellant to take steps for service of notice on respondent no.2, had taken effect. The order dated 2.8.1999 is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of 5 quick reference:- “Three weeks‟ time is allowed to take steps for fresh service of notices upon respondent nos.2 and 4 on talbana etc. being filed failing which, the appeal shall stand dismissed as against them without further reference to a Bench. Same time is allowed to take steps for substitution of heirs of respondent no.3, failing which, the appeal shall proceed as it is at the risk of the appellant.” In view of non-compliance of the order, the appeal stood dismissed against respondent no.2, respondent no.4, and the heirs of respondent no.3 after lapse of three weeks. Steps were never taken for recall and/or modification of the order dated 2.8.1999, as a result of which the appeal stood dismissed against them. The substitution application was, therefore, of no avail to the proposed heirs of respondent no.2. We do not find any merit in this application. We entirely agree with the order passed by the Division Bench. Review application is accordingly dismissed. ahk (S.K.Katriar,J.) (Jyoti Saran,J.) 6