IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.432 of 2011 Bharat Jee Prasad, son of late Mahanth Sah, resident of Village-Saraiya Ward No.4, Yadopur, Road 6 at Post Office + Police Sation- Gopalganj, District Gopalganj ---- Respondent/Appellant/Petitioner. Versus 1. Yogendra Pandit, son of late Gokhula Pandit, resident of Banjar, Gopalganj, Post Office + Police Station- Gopalganj, District-Gopalganj ---Writ Petitioner/Respondent/Appellant. 2. The State of Bihar 3. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 4. The Civil S.D.O. Gopalganj Sadar, District-Gopalganj ----- Opposite Parties. -------------- 4. 29.3.2011 Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi for the petitioner. This restoration application has been filed by the appellant of L.P.A. No. 1814 of 2010, praying therein to recall the order dated 12.1.2011, whereby the appeal was disposed of on merits, though in the absence of learned counsel for the appellant, and for the direction to rehear the matter. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. The present petitioner was respondent no.5 in the connected C.W.J.C. No. 8263 of 2010, which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 14.5.2010, which in its entirety is reproduced hereinbelow: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 2 and the State. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in Eviction Suit No.02 of 2008 in which defendant-respondent no.5 has filed petition under order XIV Rule-2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is not being considered and disposed of, result being that there is no progress in the eviction suit. 3. Let the Sub-Ordinate Judge-I, Gopalganj dispose of the petition filed by the defendant- respondent no.5 under order XIV Rule-2, C.P.C. as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. After disposing of the petition the court below should proceed with the Title Suit No.2 of 2008 and dispose of the same, as early as possible, in any case within nine months from the date of disposal of the petition under order XIV Rule-2. 4. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent no.5 preferred the aforesaid appeal bearing L.P.A. No. 1814 of 2010, which was disposed of on merits. The Division Bench had also noted that there was a delay of 129 days in filing the appeal. 4. The established practice of this Court is that, if the main matter has been disposed of on merits, though in the absence of learned counsel for the concerned party, a restoration application is not maintainable. The position is further accentuated in the present case inasmuch as the substance of the order on the writ petition as well as the appeal is to dispose of the main matter pending before the 3 learned trial court expeditiously. No exception can be taken under any circumstance to have the main matter disposed of expeditiously. We consider it to be a frivolous application, and a gross abuse of the process of the Court. 5. This application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) ( S. P. Singh, J.)