IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1374 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 10415/2010) 1. M/S Bhargo Saw Mill, Khagaul Road, Mithapur, P.S.Jakkanpur, District-Patna, through its Proprietor Rajendra Singh, Son of Late Sardar Charan Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Khagaul Road, Mithapur, P.S. Jakkanpur, District-Patna. 2. M/S Azad Saw Mill, Mahatma Gandhi Setu Road, P.S. Agamkuan, District-Patna, through its Proprietor Rajendra Singh, Son of Late Sardar Charan Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Khagaul Road, Mithapur, P.S. Jakkanpur, Distt-Patna. --------------Petitioners/Appellants Versus 1. The Central Bank of India, Yarpur Branch, Yarpur, Patna through The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Maurya Complex, 2nd Floor, Block-R, Dakbunglow Road, Patna. 2. Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Branch Office, Yarpur Branch, Yarpur, Patna. 3. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Yarpur Branch, Yarpur, Patna. --------------Respondents-Respondents. ---------------------------------- 3. 18.08.2011 None appears on behalf of the appellant. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha for the respondent Bank. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been filed against the judgment and order dated 9.7.2010, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10415 of 2010, (M/S Bhargo Saw Mill & Anr. Vs. The Central Bank of India & Ors.), whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the claim of the petitioners for refund of the excess amount paid to the respondent Bank by way of interest, has been found not maintainable. We have perused the material on record and 2 considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents. It appears to us that the petitioner had earlier preferred C.W.J.C. No. 11525 of 2008, and C.W.J.C. No. 11667 of 2008, which were disposed of by a common order dated 5.2.2009, with the observations that the writ petition for such a money claim cannot be entertained. The petitioner was, however, given liberty to file an appropriate representation before the respondent Bank to ventilate his grievances. Learned counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice another Pendente Lite development. The appellants’ representation was disposed of by the Bank by order dated 29.12.2009 (Annexure-2), as has been noticed by the learned Single Judge, whereby a sum of Rs. 25,916/- has been refunded to appellant no.1, and another sum of Rs. 25,819/= has been refunded to appellant no. 2 herein. It further appears to us that the writ petitioners have preferred separate contempt applications bearing M.J.C. No. 1939 of 2009, and M.J.C. No. 1940 of 2009, which were disposed of by separate orders, both on 12.5.2011, which are in identical terms. The orders are reproduced herein below. “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the grievances of the petitioner have been redressed and as such he 3 seeks leave to withdraw this application. The application is disposed of as such”. It thus appears to us that the dues of the appellants have been paid to him. They have admitted complete redressal of their grievances in the two M.J.C. applications. This is a frivolous appeal, and is accordingly dismissed. Anand Kr. (S. K. Katriar, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)