IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1561 of 2008 LAL MUNI DUSADH Versus MOTI DUSADH & ORS ----------- 06. 17.02.2009 I.A.No.5667 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for condoning seventeen days delay in filing of the MJC case. From the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the averments made in the interlocutory application, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown due to which the MJC petition could not be filed earlier and, accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay in filing of the MJC case is condoned. This MJC case has been has been filed for restoration of S.A.No.291 of 2004 which was dismissed for default on 16.05.2008 as no one appeared at the time when it was called out for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. From the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the statements made in the petition, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown which prevented learned counsel for the petitioner from appearing in the court on the aforesaid date. In the said circumstances, this petition is allowed and S.A.No.291 of 2004 is restored to its original file and number. Since this second appeal is of the year 2004, let it be placed under the heading “for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure” on 24th February, 2009. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)