IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.898 of 2009 SMT.PRABHA DEVI Versus MOSTT.JILAWATI DEVI & ORS ----------- 05/ 07.10.2009 This petition (M.J.C. No. 898 of 2009) has been filed by the defendant-appellant-petitioner for modification of order dated 03.02.2009 passed in M.J.C. No. 917 of 2008. 2. The instant matter arises out of Title Suit No. 54 of 1983, which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent-opposite party for declaration that the sale-deed in question executed by defendants no.2 and 3 in favour of defendant no. 1 ( petitioner ) was illegal, void and not binding and also for other reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by learned Subordinate Judge-I, Patna, vide his judgment and decree dated 17.12.1986 after arriving at the specific findings on the issues framed in the suit. 3. Against the said judgment and decree, defendant no.1-appellant-petitioner filed First Appeal No. 105 of 1987, but inspite of repeated orders the appellant did not file the appellant-list nor deposited the initial printing cost for preparation of the paper book and hence a peremptory order dated 04.05.2006 was passed by this Court granting one week peremptory time to comply the said order. It transpires that the said order having not been complied, the first appeal stood dismissed for default on 12.05.2006. 4. M.J.C. No. 2769 of 2006 was filed by the apapellant-petitioner for restoration of the said first appeal, which was allowed on 13.08.2007 subject to compliance of order dated 2 04.05.2006 passed in the first appeal by 20.08.2007. The said order of this Court also having not been complied, M.J.C. No. 2769 of 2006 stood dismissed for default. 5. M.J.C. No. 917 of 2008 was filed on behalf of the appellant-petitioner for restoration of M.J.C. No. 2769 of 2006 and this Court taking a lenient view allowed M.J.C. No. 917 of 2008 as well as M.J.C. No. 2769 of 2006 vide order dated 03.02.2009 and restored the first appeal to its original file and number, but the said order was made subject to compliance of order dated 04.05.2006 passed in the first appeal by 06.02.2009 and also payment of cost of Rs.5,000.00 to the counsel for the respondents. 6. It is quite strange to note that learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner is unaware as to whether order dated 04.05.2006 passed in the first appeal has been complied. This shows gross negligence of the appellant-petitioner, which is the reason for non-compliance of repeated orders of this Court. However, it is admitted that the cost of Rs.5,000.00 has not been paid till the date although the time has expired and much delay has occurred. 7. Now M.J.C. No. 898 of 2009 has been filed on behalf of the appellant-petitioner for modification of order dated 03.02.2009 passed by this Court in M.J.C. No. 917 of 2008. This petition appears to be absolutely frivolous and the appellant- petitioner is trying to play games with this Court, which he cannot be allowed to do. 8. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for 3 the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, it may be noted that all the M.J.C. cases bearing M.J.C. No. 898 of 2009, M.J.C. No. 917 of 2008 and M.J.C. No. 2769 of 2006 as well as F.A. No. 105 of 1987 have stood dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )