IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2495 of 2010 ONKAR NATH PATHAK S/O CHINTAMANI PATHAK, R/O VILLAGE & P.O.MAHADEOGANJ, DIST-SAHEBGANJ, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KAITHPURA, P.S.BARHAT,DIST- BANKA…..PETITTIONER….RESPONDENT NO.1……………………………………………...PETITIONER. Versus 1. RAJENDRA PRASAD YADAV S/O SRI VIKRAM YADAV, R/O VILLAGE-MAHADEOGANJ, P.S.MAHARAJGANJ, DISTT-SAHEMGANJ. 2. BIPIN BIHARI PATHAK S/O CHINTAMANI PATHAK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KAITHPURA P.S.BARHAT, DISTT-SAHEBGANJ……RESPONDENTS 2ND SET ….RESPONDENTS. 3. THE MANAGING (CO-ORDINATING CELL) BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, PATNA. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, DEOGHAR……RESPONDENTS- APPELLANTS-RESPONDENT. ----------- 02/ 01-Dec-2010 The office note is, prima facie, correct that no order was passed in MJC Nos. 2495 and 2496 of 2010 on 29.06.2010. Actually, the order passed on that date has been recorded in Civil Review No. 33 and 34 of 2010. However, on that date those review applications had already been disposed of by order dated 5.5.2010 and in fact paragraph-4 of the order passed on 29th June 2010 discloses that the matter was being considered in the light of MJC petitions bearing nos. 2495 and 2496 of 2010 which were also disposed of as per paragraph-4 of 2 the order dated 29th June 2010. Hence, the order dated 29th June 2010 passed in Civil Review Nos. 33 and 34 of 2010 shall be treated to have been passed in the records of MJC Nos. 2495 and 2496 of 2010. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)