IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1592 of 2010 OM PRAKASH SINGH …PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMDEO SINGH …OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 03. 11.03.2011 Although the matter was listed under the heading ‘for orders on petition’, but this Court permitted the Petitioner to make submission on merit of the case. Heard. Petitioner assails the appellate order dated 30.04. 2008, passed in criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 28/02 (Ramdeo Singh vs. State of Bihar & Anr.), whereby the order dated 07.06.2001, passed in Supplementary Case No. 117M/1998 has been interfered with and set aside. He has, however, not enclosed the said order. On query, learned counsel produced certified copy of the aforesaid order dated 07.06.2001 which is kept on record marked as ‘Y’. It appears therefrom that the aforesaid case was not fixed on 07.06.2001. On an application preferred by the petitioner (1st party to the proceeding), the money collected from disposal of the crops standing on the plots which is the subject-matter of proceeding before the Sub Divisional Magistrate were directed to be released in favour of the petitioner(1st party). The appellate court has taken a view that the procedure adopted by the respondents S.D.M. was not in accordance with law. By the 2 same order, learned S.D.M. Manihari, Katihar is directed to afford hearing to both the parties and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. This court does not find any infirmity in the said order whereby the matter was required to be heard afresh in presence of both the parties by the respondents S.D.M. before passing any order on the petition of the petitioner (1st party) in the said proceeding. For these reasons, this court is not inclined to interfere with the appellate order which has been impugned in the present application. The application is dismissed. Since I have considered the matter on merit, the question/issue of limitation pales into insignificance. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )