IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2561 of 2008 Arun Kumar Srivastav Versus Purushottam Pd.Srivastav & Ors ---------------------------------- 9 28.09.2011 This restoration application has been filed for restoration of S.A. No. 86 of 1995 which stood dismissed in default for noncompliance of the order dated 25.8.1999. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on 25.8.1999 the cause list could not be marked by the advocate’s clerk and due to that reason the counsel on behalf of the appeal could not appear in the court. It has been further stated that there has been no deliberate laches and negligence on the part of the appellant and the peremptory order could not be complied due to bonafide mistake committed by the office of the advocate. No one appears on behalf of the opposite parties even after valid service of notice upon them except (O.P. No.5 and O.P. no.2). Learned counsel appearing on opposite party no. 2 and 5 has no objection to the restoration of the second appeal. In view of the statements made in the restoration application it appears that genuine reasons have been assigned by the applicant for restoration of the second appeal No. 86 of 1995 to its original file. This restoration application is allowed and the second appeal no. 86 of 1995 is restored to its original file. M.Rahman ( V. Nath, J)