IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.420 of 1983 RAUDI RAUT & ORS Versus MANGAL CHAUDHARY & ORS ----------- 19. 09/01/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This application has been filed for restoration of S.A.No.736 of 1980 which stood dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 28.7.1981 by which certain defects were required to be removed in the memo of appeal. It is stated that defects were removed but due to inadvertence name of father of respondent no.2 was not correctly mentioned, on account of which Second Appeal was treated as dismissed for non-compliance of the order of this Court. It is said in this restoration application that the mistake was on the part of the lawyer in not correctly giving description of the name of the father of respondent no.2 for which party should not suffer. This MJC application was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties have appeared in the case through their counsel and names of the learned counsels are appearing in the cause list. - 2 - However, no one appears for the opposite parties inspite of repeated calls. In the circumstances, this MJC application is allowed and s.A.No.736 of 1980 is restored to its original file. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to correct the name of father of respondent no.2 in the Second Appeal in course of the day. Office shall proceed with the Second Appeal and prepare the same for its final hearing as early as possible. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)