IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2141 of 2000 RAM LOCHAN SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 8.7.2009 I.A. 5264 of 2004 The interlocutory application has been filed for substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of the sole petitioner, who is stated to have died on 20.6.2004 during the pendency of the restoration application. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the name of the sole petitioner shall be expunged and in his place the names of his heirs and legal representatives stated in paragraph No.2 of the interlocutory application shall be substituted. I.A. No.5264 of 2004 is, accordingly, disposed of. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and for the State. No one appears for opposite Party No.7, although notice was duly served upon her and she has entered appearance. The application has been filed for restoration/ modification of the order dated 7.4.2000 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.663 of 2000, which was dismissed for default against respondent No.4 for non-compliance of the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 in the writ petition was the Sub-divisional Officer, Siwan, District-Siwan, who was already represented through the State Counsel, whereas respondent No.7, Kishori Devi, is a private party 2 and by order dated 7.4.2000 of this Court the notice was directed to be issued to respondent No.7, but due to inadvertence/typographical error in the order sheet, the issuance of notice was directed to respondent No.4. The petitioner filed talbana , etc. for issuance of notice on respondent No.7 and for the said reason, since the order was peremptory in nature, the writ petition stood rejected so far as respondent No.4 is concerned. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the order dated 7.4.2000 passed in C.W.J.C. No.663 of 2000 contains typographical error and it is, accordingly, modified to the extent that instead of respondent No.4, the notice should be read as to be issued to respondent No.7. In that view of the matter the order dated 7.4.2000 stands complied by the petitioner. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.7 has already appeared even in the writ petition and filed counter affidavit, which fact is also borne out from the record of the writ petition. In the said circumstances, now there is no requirement for issuing notice in the writ petition to respondent No.7 and the order dated 7.4.2000 is, accordingly, further modified to that extent. In view of the modifications in the order dated 7.4.2000, it is directed that the writ application shall stand restored to its original file with respect to respondent No.4 also. VPS (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)