IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.REV. No.60 of 1993 1.AWADHESH SINGH SON OF JEEV NANDAN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PUCHARI,VIA,P.S.BANIAPUR, DISTRICT SARAN AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF RAJEEV NAGAR,SULABH MARG,PATNA 2.RAM AYODHYA SINGH SON OF LATE JEEV NANDAN SINGH 3.BALDEV SINGH SON OF LATE GOPAL SINGH 4.PUNYADAV SINGH SON OF LATE BARHMA DEV SINGH 5.DINANATH SINGH SON OF LATE DASRATH SINGH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PUCHARI,VIA+POST-BANIAPUR, DISTTRICT SARAN,BIHAR ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 2.THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR,SARAN,DISTRICT SARAN,BIHAR 3.SURESH SINGH 4.AJAY SINGH 5.RAVINDRA SINGH 6.SHAILENDRA SINGH ALL SONS OF SABALIYA SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PUCHARI,VIA+P.S.BANIAPUR DISTRICT SARAN, BIHAR ---RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES 7.DEV NANDAN SINGH SON OF LATE GOPAL SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PUCHARI,PS.BANIAPUR,DISTRICT SARAN AT PRESENT RATNAVALI INDUSTRIES, BOKARO INDUSTRIAL AREA, P.S.BALADIH,PHASE-1, BOKARO STEEL CITY, BOKARO ----- PROFORMA RESPONDENT/OPPOSITE PARTY ------ 9/ 16.09.2009 None appears on behalf of the parties. This application has been filed by the petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 6128 of 1992 (Awadhesh Singh.Vrs.The State of Bihar and others), for review/recall of the order dated 23.2.1993, whereby the writ petition was directed to be withdrawn with the observations made therein. We have perused the materials on record. It appears that the learned Additional Collector had disposed of the 2 revenue matter pending before him on the ground that it involves a complicated disputed question of title and, therefore, the parties were advised to get the same resolved by a civil suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petition was preferred which was disposed of by the following order on 23.2.1993 : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In view of the fact that by reason of the impugned order the learned Additional Collector has merely held that as the case involves a complicated disputed question of title, the parties may get the same resolved in a civil suit, we do not think it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. The application is permitted to be withdrawn with the above observation.” We entirely agree with the order in 3 question. No worthwhile ground has been raised in this application for review/recall of the order. This review application is accordingly dismissed. (S.K.Katriar,J.) Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)