IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16823 of 2009 CHANDA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 27.01.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The appellate order states that the District Magistrate passed the impugned order on 5.1.2007, when the appellant was also present and declines interference in the appeal on the ground that it had been instituted beyond the period of limitation after nearly one and half years. If the petitioner contended that the order was in fact not passed by the District Magistrate on 5.1.2007 and orders were reserved on that date it was for the petitioner to take that specific stand in the memo of appeal. A copy of the same has been placed before the Court. Though the pleadings are not very clear they are suggestive of the fact that the order had been reserved. A prayer had been made in the appeal that the original records be called for. From the appellate order it does not appear that the appellate authority called for, much less examined the original records. The petitioner must also bear a part of the blame for not having clearly established foundational facts in the appeal. Subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- by the petitioner to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna within a period of two weeks from today if the petitioner files an application before the appellate authority along with proof of such deposit the appellate authority shall summon the original record of Case No. 54 of 2007 from the office of the District Magistrate and then proceed to decide the appeal in accordance with law preferably within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt of the record after hearing all concerned. The writ application stands disposed off. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)