IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3386 of 2009 RAMESH PRASAD & ORS. Versus MOST. URMILA DEVI & ORS. ----------- 03/ 31.03.2010 This petition has been filed for restoration of S.A. No.120 of 2006 which was dismissed for default against respondent nos.3, 7, 8, 9 and 11 due to non-compliance of peremptory order of this court dated 10.09.2009 by which two weeks time was allowed to the appellants-petitioners to take steps for fresh service of appeal notices upon the said respondents- opposite parties on their present correct addresses under registered post. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to inadvertence he thought that the order was to take steps for appeal notices by ordinary process and hence he took steps for fresh service of appeal notices upon the said respondents-opposite parties by ordinary process within the time prescribed. It is also stated that when learned counsel for the appellants learnt about the details of the said order, he immediately filed the requisites for registered post on 08.10.2009, although the time granted by this court had lapsed. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners as well as the statements made in the petition, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown due to which the order of this court dated 10.09.2009 was wrongly complied. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and S.A.No.120 of 2 2006 is restored to its original file and number. However, this order will be subject to compliance of the order of this court dated 10.09.2009 by 02.04.2010. Office is directed to take steps accordingly. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )