IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1138 of 2007 STATE OF BIHAR Versus SARAGUN SINGH & ANR ----------- 6. 6.8.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Although notices were issued and duly served upon opposite parties but no one appears on behalf of opposite parties in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that First Appeal No. 48 of 2001 stood dismissed on account of the dismissal of the limitation petition since the peremptory order of filing requisites of notice in the limitation matter by order dated 8.3.2007 was not complied within two weeks time but rather on 29.3.2009, that is, within three weeks. It is submitted by learned counsel that due to inadvertence, that is, on account of the impression that the requisites were to be filed within three weeks, that they were filed on 29.3.2007. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the time for compliance of the order dated 8.3.2007 is extended to 29.3.2007 and accordingly it is declared that the notices were filed within time. As such I.A. No. 2157 of 2001 being the limitation petition shall accordingly stand restored to its original file. With the restoration of the limitation petition, the First Appeal No. 48 of 2001 shall also stand restored to its original file. The restoration application is, accordingly, allowed. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)