IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.234 of 2007 In LPA 1022 of 1998 ====================================================== Shukdeo Prasad, son of Yadav Lal Prasad @ Jadav Lal Prasad, resident of village and post- Laukhan, Mahima Mahto Tola, P.S.- Ghorasahan, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Rajdeo Mahto, son of Late Badri Mahto, resident of village- Laukhan, Mahima Mahto Tola, P.S.- Ghorasahan, District- East Champaran. 2. The State of Bihar. 3. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Collector, East Champaran at Motihari. 5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sikarhana at Motihari, District- East Champaran. 6. Chhakan Mahto, son of Guli Mahto. 7. Yogendra Mahto, son of Raja Ram Mahto. (Respondent nos. 6 and 7 are residents of village Laukhan, Mahima Mahto Tola, P.S.- Ghorasahan, District- East Champaran) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc2) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) 15 06-11-2012 Perused the order dated 24.01.2012 of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 1648-1649/2012 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.5902-5903/2010. The order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.8680 of 1996 was challenged in L.P.A. NO.1022 of 1998 before the Division Bench of this Court. The L.P.A. was disposed of on 31.08.2007 and L.P.A. filed by Patna High Court C. REV. No.234 of 2007 (15) dt.06-11-2012 2 respondent no.1 was allowed vide order dated 13.08.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside. The revisional order, subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge, was quashed and the relief was granted to respondent no.1. When the LPA came to be heard, then the learned counsel appearing for Yadav Lal Prasad @ Jado Lal Prasad, father of the present appellant Sukhdeo Prasad, did not appear. Respondentno.1 did not bring it to the notice of the Division Bench that the contesting respondent Yadav Lal Prasad had expired on 07.01.2007. This Court passed the impugned order against the dead person. The appellant who is said to be the sole surviving legal heir of Yadav Lal Prasad brought this fact through Review Petition before the Division Bench of the High Court for recall of the order passed in LPA on 31.08.2007. The Review was not preferred within time and it was barred by 61 days. For condoning the delay in preferring the Review Application, one I.A. No.5562 of 2009 was filed mentioning that father alone being the Karta of the family was contesting the matter and taking care of the case expired and this fact could not be brought to the notice of the Division Bench. The counsel appearing for deceased Yadav Lal Prasad did not appear in the Court nor did he bring it to the notice of the Court of death of Yadav Lal Prasad. The Review Application was Patna High Court C. REV. No.234 of 2007 (15) dt.06-11-2012 3 dismissed and order passed in LPA was confirmed, which was challenged before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1648- 1649/2012 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.5902-5903/2010. The Apex Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case which has been brought to its notice and noted that it was bonafide mistake of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the deceased, who should have brought all these facts to the notice of the Division Bench, but he failed to do so. The Hon’ble Supreme Court condoned the delay and set aside the order dated 08.09.2009 passed in appellant’s review petition and remit the matter to the Division Bench for hearing in accordance with law. The Civil Review Petition was directed to be heard on merit. The parties were also directed to appear before the Division Bench of this Court as per the Roster on 14.03.2012, but the contesting respondent did not appear. The Court took all steps to see that notice was properly served, but despite service of notice, the contesting respondent did not appear. There was direction of the Apex court to dispose of the review petition within six months considering the fact that contesting respondent had been appeared, despite direction of the Apex court that the application was to be heard and dispose of early, we have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the review application thus Patna High Court C. REV. No.234 of 2007 (15) dt.06-11-2012 4 allowed. In view of the settled principle of law that the order cannot be passed against a dead person, the order passed in L.P.A. is also fit to be set aside and it requires to be heard on merit. The order passed in L.P.A. No.1022 of 1998 is also set aside. Now, it is to be heard on merit. Let the L.P.A. be placed before an appropriate Bench after obtaining necessary permission from Hon’ble the Chief Justice. V.K. Pandey/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)