IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6529 of 2005 BRAJ NANDAN SINGH SON OF LATE GORELAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAITHMA, P.S. SHEIKHPURA, DISTRICT SHEIKHPURA ….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, MUNGER 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHEIKHPURA ……RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, J.C. to G.A. VII 2. 20.01.2009 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 3.3.2005 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Munger in Miscellaneous Case No.12 of 2002-2003/ 13 of 2003-2004, whereby he has dismissed the appeal for default. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that petitioner’s appeal was dismissed for default earlier. He filed application for restoration, which was also dismissed. Thereafter he preferred C.W.J.C.No.8827 of 2003 before this Court and by order dated 27.8.2003 the order dismissing the appeal was quashed and the case was remitted back before the Divisional Commissioner to decide the appeal on merit. Thereafter the appeal has been dismissed for default again. Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that when this Court in the earlier order directed the Divisional Commissioner to decide the appeal on merit, he ought not to have dismissed the appeal for default. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Ranjan. In view of the order of this Court, the Divisional 2 Commissioner intended to hear the appeal on merit and in fact the appellant was given chance on 30.12.2004 and 17.2.2005, but no argument was advanced on his behalf on merit and the case was adjourned to 3.3.2005. On 3.3.2005 though the petitioner filed hazari but when the matter was called out, he was not present. While adjourning the case on 30.12.2004 and 17.2.2005, the Divisional Commissioner had observed that last chance is being given. Despite that appellant did not appear on the next date i.e. 3.3.2005. In such circumstance, order dismissing the appeal for default cannot be said to be erroneous. I do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed in limine. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, ACJ.) Narendra/