IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4053 of 2008 MOSMAT MAHAKALI DEVI,wife of late Chandra Narain Mishra, resident of village- Harna, Police Station, Andhra- Tharhi,District- Madhubani. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Kali Kant Mishra, son of Sonu Mishra 3. Shyam Sundar Mishra, son of late Sone Mishra 4. Durgakant Mishra, son of Shyam Sundar Mishra 5. Shailendra Kumar, son of Kalikant Mishra 6. Bacha Mishra, son of Kali Kant Mishra 7. Sudhir Mishra, son of Durga Kant Mishra, all residents of village Harna, Police Station Andhra- Thahri,District-Madhubani. 8. Smt. Sita Devi wife of Hit Narayan Jha, resident of village Mahrail Police-Station Andhra-Thahri, District-Madhubani 9. Smt.Moti Devi wife of Binod Jha, resident of village Barma, P.S. Andhra Tharhi,District- Madhubani. 10. Shambhoo Nath Mishra, son of Almbodar Mishra, resident of village Nauagar, Police Station-Andhra Tharhi, District- Madhubani. --- 2. 21/4/2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to delete the name of respondent No.2 from the array of respondents in the course of the day. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure-5) passed by the District Judge, Madhubani in Title Appeal No. 58/2006. By the aforesaid order the learned District Judge after considering the contention of the parties has admitted the appeal against the final decree for final hearing after condoning the delay in filing of the appeal on the ground that the appellants had no knowledge of Pattibandi. From a perusal of the impugned order it appears that all 2 aspects of the matter were taken into consideration, including the fact that no notice of proceedings for the preparation of final decree was issued to the appellants. He also considered regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge, Madhubani to proceed in the matter and other aspects and thereafter has come to the conclusion that it was a fit case for admitting appeal after condoning the delay, if any, in filing of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellants in the title appeal had full knowledge of the proceedings and they have also been noticed by the Advocate Commissioner and thus the appeal having been filed after inordinate delay, the delay in filing of the same ought not to have been condoned. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the District Judge has the discretion to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admitting an appeal for hearing and, therefore, no interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned order dated 30.10.2007 The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)