IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.313 of 1990 1. Mostt. Parva Devi W/o Late Radhey Choudhary, resident of village Moquimpur, Begusarai, P.S. & District-Begusarai. …Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant. V e r s u s 1. Ram Nandan Bhagat S/o Yamuna Bhagat, resident of village Moquimpur-Begusarai, P.S. & District –Begusarai. …Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 1st Party 2. Dhanik Bhagat @ Mahendra Bhagat S/o Late Bhola Bhagat 3. Moti Bhagat son of Bouku Bhagat, both are residents of village Mokimpur-Begusarai, P.S. & District- Begusarai. …Defendants-Respondents-Respondents 2nd Party 4. Smt. Radhika Devi W/o late Shib Shankar Sahai, resident of village Mokimpur-Begusarai, P.S. & District-Begusarai. …Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 3rd Party 5. Smt. Sarojai Devi W/o Late Ram Pratap Choudhary & D/o Late Radhey Choudhary, resident of village Hasanpur Road, P.S. Bakhari at present Tarkari Market Begusarai, P.S. & District Begusarai. 6. Smt. Premshila Devi W/o Sri Mahesh Choudhary Jaiswal and D/o Late Radhey Choudhary, resident of village Danapur, P.S. Danapur, District Patna. …Defendants-Respondents-Respondents 4th Party. For the appellant : None. For the respondents : None. ----------- 26/ 06.01.2009 Since last several dates no one is appearing on behalf of the appellant. Today also no one appears on behalf of the appellant. It transpires that respondent no.4, namely, Smt. Radhika Devi died on 14.01.2004 leaving behind five sons as her heirs and legal representatives but no application for substitution of her said heirs was filed on behalf of the appellant. However, an application on behalf of deceased respondent no.4 was filed on 18.08.2004 bearing I.A. No. 4089 of 2004. It is strange how an application can be filed on behalf of a dead person. However, the said interlocutory application stood dismissed for default on 2 20.07.2005 and for restoration of the said interlocutory application, I.A. No. 5166 of 2008 was filed on behalf of the appellant but the said interlocutory application was also dismissed on 16.09.2008 with a liberty to the appellant to file M.J.C for restoration, if they so desire. It transpires that no M.J.C. has been filed on behalf of the appellant, although more than three months have passed. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was the plaintiff of the Title Suit no.27 of 1968 which was filed by her for declaration that the order passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 64 of 1964 dated 13.12.1965 was illegal and unwarranted and the plaintiff was entitled to take delivery of possession. The said suit was dismissed and the plaintiff’s title appeal was also dismissed, whereafter she has filed the instant second appeal, which is pending since 1990. In any view of the matter respondent no.4 was a defendant in the suit and was a necessary party and hence the dismissal of the instant second appeal against her has made the entire second appeal incompetent. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed, as having become incompetent. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)