IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1271 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Bhagwat Mandal. 2. Ram Dutta Mandal. 3. Satya Narayan Mandal. All nos. 1 to 3 are sons of late Jageshwar Mandal. 4. Most. Nanubati, wife of late Jageshwar Mandal. 5. Smt. Sonia Devi, wife of Ram Dutta Mandal. All are residents of Village Sarouli, P.O. Baruar, P.S. Andhramath, Distt. Madhubani. ................(Defendant 1st Set-Appellants in the court below) .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. Binda Devi, wife of Shri Narayan Prasad Mandal, resident of Village Bangama, Tole- Katardov, P.O. Bangama, P.S. Laukahi, Distt. Madhubani. .......(Plaintiff-Respondents in the court below) ...........Opposite Party 1st Set. 2. Debu Mandal, son of Faudar Mandal. 3. Sebu Mandal. 4. Ram Sewak Mandal. Both nos. 3 and 4 are sons of late Faudar Mandal. 5. Most. Manige, wife of late Faudar Mandal. 6. Digamber Mandal, son of Kumar Mandal. 7. Kumar Mandal, son of late Uchit Mandal. 8. Udgari Devi. 9. Phul Kumari Devi. 10. Sita Devi. 11. Rita Devi. All nos. 8 to 11 are daughters and nos. 2 to 11 are of Kumar Mandal, residents of Village Tharhi, P.O. Chichodva, P.S. Loukahi, Distt. Madhubani. 12. Kapleshwari Devi, wife of Shiv Narayan Mandal, resident of Village Bagewa, P.O. Loukahi, Dhanchhiba, P.S. Loukahi, Distt. Madhubani. Patna High Court MJC No.1271 of 2011 (2) dt.17-08-2011 2 13. Bijli Devi, wife of Sakal Dev Mandal, resident of Village Chhatapur, P.O. Kukurdanda, P.S. Andhramath, Distt. Madhubani. 14. Nirmala Devi, wife of Kameshwar Mandal, resident of Village Jarouli, P.O. Baruar, P.S. Andhramath, Distt. Madhubani. .......(Defendant 2nd Set-Respondents in the court below) .......Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhas Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : --------- ====================================================== 2/ 17-08-2011 Heard. It appears that Civil Revision Application No. 823 of 2008 filed on behalf of the petitioners was held to be not maintainable by order dated 11.08.2010 passed by a Bench of this Court in view of law laid down by the Apex Court as also by this 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 11.08.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of aforesaid order dated 11.08.2010, 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 Patna High Court MJC No.1271 of 2011 (2) dt.17-08-2011 3 required to be removed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. By an order dated 20.01.2011 passed in the aforesaid Civil Revision Application No.823 of 2008, two weeks’ peremptory time was granted for removal of the defects. However, for the reasons disclosed in the present petition, the order dated 20.01.2011 could not be complied with. Consequently, the Civil Revision application stood rejected due to non compliance of peremptory order dated 20.01.2011. Hence, the present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking restoration of aforesaid Civil Revision Application No.823 of 2008. In the considered opinion of this Court and in view of order dated 11.08.2010, Civil Revision application would not be maintainable against the impugned orders. Therefore, the prayer for restoration of aforesaid Civil Revision Application No.823 of 2008 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.823 of 2008. If such a writ petition is filed, then that may be considered on its own merit Patna High Court MJC No.1271 of 2011 (2) dt.17-08-2011 4 without being prejudiced by the dismissal of Civil Revision Application No.823 of 2008 due to non-compliance of peremptory order dated 20.01.2011. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the application stands disposed of. Anjani /- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)