IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.952 of 2011 1. SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, SON OF SRI CHHAGAN LAL SHARMA, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S ANKUR BUSINESS PVT. LTD., 10, CLIVE ROW, ROOM NO.206/4, KOLKATA – 700001. 2. MANISH SHARMA, SON OF SITARAM SHARMA, EX-EMPLOYEE OF M/S ANKUR BUSINESS PVT.LTD., 10, CLIVE ROW, ROOM NO.206/4, KOLKATA – 700001. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MANISH KUMAR, SON OF SRI PRASHUN NARAYAN MISHRA, C/O KALYANI AGENCY, FARDIGOLA CHOWK, CHAINPUR ROAD, P.S. KANTI, JAMSHEDPUR. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 3. 23.3.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The present petition has been filed for restoring Cr. Misc. No.34262 of 2007, which stood dismissed on 22.11.2010 due to non prosecution. While referring to statement made in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the day i.e. 22.11.2010, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners was present in court and had appeared in a case at serial no.218 at 3.40 P.M. Learned counsel left the court to attend a case in Court No.2 and Junior Counsel was also assisting him in Court No.2. Both remained under impression that the instant case will be 2 called out after some time. This case was at Sl. No.235 under the heading for admission and this was the reason for non appearance, when the case was called out and is a good ground for restoration. Cr. Misc. No.34262 of 2007 was earlier also taken up, which is evident from order dated 16.11.2010. On that day also, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The case was adjourned indicating therein that no further adjournment shall be granted. This Court had also noticed that in the case, interim order of stay was continuing since 18.11.2008. Again on 22.11.2010, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and as such the petition was rejected. After going through the contents in the restoration petition and hearing the parties, the court is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground warranting restoration of Cr. Misc. No.of 2007. The restoration petition stands rejected. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)