IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1612 of 2003 1. MD.ALAMGIR ANSARI, SON OF LATE MD. TASLIM ANSARI. 2. BIBI NAJMA KHATOON, WIFE OF SHAUKAT ALI ANSARI @ MD. SHAUKAT ALI. 2(a). REYAZUL HAQUE. 2(b). FAIYAZUL HAQUE. 2(c). MD. SHANAWAZ. M/R U/G. BIBI NAJMA KHATOON. 2(d). SHABANA KHATOON, WIFE OF MOKARRAM ALI. 2(e). HENA PRAVEEN. 2(f). SAYESHI PRAVEEN. 2(g). NAHID PRAVEEN. 2(h). SAHAINI PRAVEEN. U/G BIBI NAJMA KHATOON, RESIDENT OF VILL- RATANPURA, PARGANA-BHADWAR, P.S. ASHOK PAPER MILL, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. 3.MD. JAHANGIR ANSARI @ MD. JAHANGIR. 4. ZAFIRUL HAQUE ANSARI @ MD. ZAFIRUL HAQUE. 5.RAZI AHMAD ANSARI. ALL SONS OF LATE MD. TASLIM ANSARI. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE JORJA, TOLE PAHARPUR, PARGANA CHAKMANI, P.S. BAHERI, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. …………………………………..PLAINTIFF/PETITIONERS. Versus 1. MD.RAUFAR RAHMAN, SON OF LATE MD. ISHMAIL KHAN. 2. BIBI FARJANA KHANAM, WIFE OF LATE HAFAUR RAHMAN KHAN. 3. BIBI SALEHA KHANAM, WIFE OF LATE KAMIL HUSSAIN KHAN. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RATANPURA, PARGANA BHADWAR, P.S. ASHOK PAPER MILLS, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA..DEFENDANT/OPP. PARTY 4. KAFIL AHMAD KAHN, SON OF LATE ANISUR RAHMAN KHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RATANPURA, P.S. ASHOK PAPER MILL, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-MULLA HALIM KHAN, P.S. LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. ………………………………INTERVENOR/OPP. PARTY. 2 For the Petitioners: M/s V. Narain and Manoj Kumar Manoj, Advocates For the Opp.Parties: M/s Abdul Mannan and Md. Najimul Hoda, Advocates ----------- 17 27.10.2009 Learned counsel for the opposite parties files a certified copy of the order dated 02.08.2008 to demonstrate that Title Suit No. 86 of 1999 had already been dismissed on account of non-prosecution. It is submitted that the order dated 16.07.2003, which is under challenge, arises out of the aforesaid title suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this fact, but states that the petitioner will take steps for restoration of the aforesaid title suit. However, it appears that the aforesaid title suit had been dismissed way back in 2008 itself and admittedly, no step for restoration of the same has been taken by the petitioner as yet. In that view of the matter, this civil revision has become infructuous, as the title suit concerned has been dismissed and as such, this civil revision is also dismissed. However, it is made clear that since this civil revision has not been dismissed on merit and on earlier 3 occasion notices were issued upon the opposite parties, and, further, as it has been stated on behalf of the petitioners that they are taking steps for restoration of the concerned suit, this order will not preclude the petitioners from filing a fresh civil revision against the order under challenge in this revision passed in the concerned title suit in case the same is restored to its original file. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)