IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.231 of 2008 RAM PUJAN SINGH, son of Bindeshwari Singh, Accountant, Land Development Bank, Udwantnagar, resident of Village Karman, PS Arah, District Bhojpur Petitioner -Petitioner Versus 1.ADMINSTRATIVE,LAND DEV.BANK,Budh Marg, Patna 2. Deputy Managing Director, Land Development Bank, Patna 3. Regional Accounts Officer, Land Development Bank, Kankarbagh, Patna 4. State of Bihar Respondents-Opp.Parties ----------- 4- 25.7.2009 Heard Mr. Arvind Nath Pandey for the petitioner, and Dr. Poonam Kumari Singh for the respondents. This application has been filed by the petitioner of CWJC No.8943 of 2000, which was disposed of by order dated 24.4.2008, but in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits before me today that his name is Arvind Nath Pandey, which did not appear in the cause list of 24.4.2008 and, therefore, he could not appear and the matter was called out. He further submits that the order dated 24.4.2008 may be recalled and the writ petition be heard afresh. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is correct to state that none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was called and taken up on 24.4.2008, and on consideration of the counter affidavit and submission of learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition was disposed of on merits. It appears that the respondent authorities had passed the order impugned therein in pursuance of an order of the Consumer Forum. - 2 - This Court on consideration of the entire materials on record upheld the impugned order. 3. It is correct to state that none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner which is entirely of their own choice. Secondly, it appears from the Vakalatnama on record that one Arvind Bihari Pandey, Advocate, had accepted the Vakalatnama on behalf of the writ petition. It appears to us from a perusal of the photocopy of the cause list dt. 24.4.2008 filed in the present review application, that the name of Arvind Bihari Pandey had appeared in the cause list on behalf of the petitioner. I am indeed very sorry that the petitioner has tried to mislead this Court. Secondly, the mater was disposed of on merits. Therefore, I do not wish to recall the order as prayed for. 4. This review application is accordingly rejected. ( S K Katriar ) mrl