IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.826 of 2006 MOST.DHANSI DEVI Versus SIPAHI TANTI & ORS ----------- 11 7.11.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite parties though Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the opposite party no.4 but even his counsel is not present. In the peculiar facts of the case, when the petitioner had raised a legitimate grievance that she had been served with no notice either by postal peon or by Court peon or even through media publication, the Court below was required to examine the grievance of the petitioner in a more graphic manner. The Court below also had to take into consideration that if the Misc. Case No. 19/2005 filed by the petitioner was pending, the same could have been taken up on an urgent basis and disposed of so that there could not be a situation giving rise to a conflicting order. This Court would accordingly set aside the impugned order and direct the Court below to decide the Misc. Case No. 19/2005 within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is however made clear that if the petitioner does not cooperate in the disposal of the Misc. Case No. 2 19/2005, the Court below after recording the reasons may dispose of the same and thereafter may proceed to complete the remaining part of the proceedings of T.S. No. 168/2004 (F.D.). With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is allowed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)