IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.220 of 1998 1. (a) Ram Sakal Singh. (b) Uma Shankar Singh. Both sons of Raghunandan Singh, Resident of Village- Rotawan, P.S.-Nokha, District-Rohtas. (since both appellant nos.1 & 2 are dead) 3. (i) Prem Chand Singh. (ii) Prem Lal Singh. (iii) Gayan Chand Singh. All sons of Ramchandra Singh, Resident of Village- Semara, P.S. Dinara, District-Rohtas (iv) Rajmuni Devi, wife of Dhunmun Singh, Village & P.O.- Sisirta, P.S. Nokha, District-Rohtas (Bihar) (since appellant no. 3 is dead) 4. Ramchandra Singh, S/o Sitaram Singh, Village-Semara, P.S. Dinara, Distt.-Rohtas 5. Smt. Bijano @ Birajo Devi @ Biranjo Devi, W/o Kameshwar Singh, Village-Deomarkandey, P.S. Karakat, Distt.-Rohtas. (since appellant no.6 is dead) 7. Smt. Prema Devi, W/o Shankar deyal singh. 8. Shankar Dayal Singh, S/o Ram Vinay Singh. Residents of Village-Amaithi, P.S. Bikramganj. Appellant nos. 1 to 8, at present residing at Village-Tilasa, P.S.- Nasiriganj, District-Rohtas. …Defendants..Appellants..Appellants. Versus Smt. Usha Devi, D/o late Ram Lakhan Singh, Wife of Jagdish Pd. Singh, Village-Siwan,P.S.-Kargahar, District-Rohtas. At present Village-Tilasa, P.S.-Nasriganj, District-Rohtas. ……Plaintiff…Respondent…Respondent ----------- 15/ 28.03.2011 By an order dated 09.07.2009 on the basis of joint prayer made on behalf of the parties, the present Second Appeal was adjourned for three weeks enabling the parties to file a compromise petition, as according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the matter has been compromised outside the court. However, the compromise petition could not be filed within the aforesaid period of three weeks. By an order dated 31.07.2009, the time granted by order dated 09.07.2009 was extended for one more week, but it was stipulated therein that if the fresh compromise petition is not filed, then the present Second Appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench. Despite extension of time by one week, compromise petition could not be filed and therefore, I.A. No. 5000 of 2009 at Flag ‘D’ was filed on behalf of the appellant on 07.08.2009 under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for enlargement of the per-emptory time granted by the order dated 31.07.2009. A Bench of this Court allowed the aforesaid I.A. No. 5000 of 2009 by an order dated 18.08.2009 and time was extended further for one month enabling the parties to file fresh compromise petition, but a condition was stipulated therein that on failure, the aforesaid I.A. No. 5000 of 2009 shall stand dismissed. Admittedly, despite extension of time even by an order dated 18.08.2009, fresh compromise petition has not been filed by the parties within the time prescribed. Therefore, by the operation of the order dated 18.08.2009, I.A. No. 5000 of 2009 stood rejected, and order dated 31.07.2009 stood revived. Apparently, order dated 31.07.2009 was not complied with. Consequently, it has to be held that the present Second Appeal stood dismissed for non-compliance of per-emptory order dated 31.07.2009. Anjani/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)