IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.306 of 2010 GAURI SHANKAR PANDEY, S/o Late Jagarnath Pandey, R/o Village-Satbhirwa, P.O. and Police Station Majhoulia, District-West Champaran. ……….Plaintiff-Appellant. Versus 1. SHAMBHU PANDEY. 2. Nawal Kishore Pandey. 3. Nagendra Pandey. 4. Pramod Pandey. All are sons of Kamla Pandey, R/o Village-Satbhirwa, P.O. and Police Station-Majhoulia, District-West Champaran. …….Defendants/Respondetns. ----------- 03. 03.01.2011 The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2010 passed in Misc. Case No. 44 of 2009 by the 1st Additional District Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Title Appeal No. 51 of 1993. It has been submitted that the Title Appeal in question was permitted to be withdrawn in the Court below on the basis of a compromise between the persons who were not parties and, therefore, when the appellant came to know of it he filed a restoration application which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 8 of 2004. Thereafter having realized that the appeal could not be restored he filed an amendment petition seeking a review of the said order which was rejected. He then filed a civil revision before this Court which was numbered as Civil Revision No. 506 of 2007. The said application was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.09.2009 noting therein that the appellant was desirous of withdrawing Misc. Case No. 8 of 2004 and file a fresh Misc. Case for review which he was permitted to do. When the appellant filed a fresh application for reviewing the said order vide Misc. Petition No. 44/2009 the 2 same was dismissed which is the impugned order. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the application was rejected by the Court below only on the ground that he had suppressed vital information before this Court in C.R. No. 506/07, Since by then the Misc. Case No. 08 of 2004 had already been rejected on merits was not brought to the notice of this Court so there was no question of withdrawing it. The learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order for the very same reason. On going through the facts of the case, I find that on 01.09.2009 i.e. the date on which the Civil Revision No. 506 of 2007 was dismissed as withdrawn the Misc. Case No. 8 of 2004 had no relevance since it was conceded that it been filed under the wrong provisions of law and, therefore, the same having been dismissed on merits has absolutely no bearing on the present proceeding. In view of such, I would direct the court below to pass a fresh order on the Misc. Petition No. 44 of 2009 after hearing both the parties considering only as to whether the order dated 25.08.2004 passed in Title Appeal No. 51 of 1993 was required to be reviewed as per the dictates of law. With these observations, the application is disposed off. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)