IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2368 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Bibi Ayesha Khatoon , w/o Md. Ataur Rahman Ansari, and d/o late Abdur Razique @ late Abdur Razaque (Deceased). 2. Md. Ataur Rahman Ansari, s/o late Abdul Shmim. Both residents of Mohalla Bikarganj, P.O. & P.S. Laheriasarai, District Darbhanga. ....Plaintiffs .... Petitioners Versus 1. Md. Afzal. 2. Md. Ajmal. 3. Shahid Kamal. 4. Akhtar Jamal @ Bana. All sons of late Md. Ismail. 5. Farzina Bano. 6. Firoza bano. 7. Sabiha Bano. O.P. Nos.5 to 7 are d/o late Md. Ismail. 8. Salimun Nisha, w/o late Md. Ismail. All are residents of Mohalla B.K. Road, P.O. and P.S. Laheriasarai, Distt. Darbhanga. ....Defendants .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s : --------- ====================================================== 2/ 17-08-2011 Heard. It appears that Civil Revision Application No. 284 of 2009 filed on behalf of the petitioners was held to be not maintainable by order dated 12.08.2010 passed by a Bench of this Court in view of law laid down by the Apex Court as also by this Patna High Court MJC No.2368 of 2011 (2) dt.17-08-2011 2 Court. However, the petitioners were granted liberty to convert the aforesaid Civil Revision application into a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India within a period of two weeks from the date of aforesaid order dated 12.08.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of aforesaid order dated 12.08.2010, he had converted the aforesaid Civil Revision application into a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, the Centralized Filing Section pointed out certain defects, which was required to be removed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. By an order dated 02.12.2010 passed in the aforesaid Civil Revision Application No.284 of 2009, one week’s peremptory time was granted for removal of the defects. However, for the reasons disclosed in the present petition, the order dated 02.12.2010 could not be complied with. Consequently, the Civil Revision application stood rejected due to non compliance of peremptory order dated 02.12.2010. Hence, the present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking restoration of aforesaid Civil Revision Application No.284 of 2009. In the considered opinion of this Court and in view of order dated 12.08.2010, Civil Revision application would not be Patna High Court MJC No.2368 of 2011 (2) dt.17-08-2011 3 maintainable against the impugned orders. Therefore, the prayer for restoration of aforesaid Civil Revision Application No.284 of 2009 is completely misconceived and can not be entertained. However, in the given facts of the case, petitioners are granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity and correctness of the order(s), which was the subject matter of challenge in the aforesaid Civil Revision Application No.284 of 2009. If such a writ petition is filed, then that may be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the dismissal of Civil Revision Application No.284 of 2009 due to non-compliance of peremptory order dated 02.12.2010. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the application stands disposed of. Anjani /- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)