IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.116 of 2011 ABDUL MANNAN S/O DAUD ALI --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. HAMESHA KHATOON W/O ABDUL MANNAN 3. SAYEEDA KHATOON D/O ABDUL MANNAN --- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 02 25.01.2011 Re. I.A.No. 154 of 2011 Heard both sides. Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision application against the order dated 6.05.2009. The application has been lodged in this Court with defect on 20.12.2010. There is, thus, delay of close to 01 and ½ years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is ex parte and as such the application be allowed. On perusal of para 3 of the impugned order it appears that the petitioner had appeared on service of notice on 14.08.2006, but did not file show cause. Learned court below has further noticed that the petitioner (opposite party in the proceeding) in the Court below left pairvee and as such Court was left with no option but to proceed with the hearing of the matter ex-parte. On a consideration of the facts disclosed in the application, this Court is not satisfied that he has been prevented by sufficient cause in filing the present application within time. The interlocutory application is dismissed. Since I have already rejected the interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay, the main application 2 being Cr. Rev. no. 116 of 2011, is also dismissed as having become barred by limitation. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)