IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No. 3787 of 2011 1. VISHWAKARMA MAHTO , S/o Ramashray Mahto. 2. Rikhi Mahto, S/o Ramashray Mahto. 3. Ram Asray Mahto, S/o Doda Mahto. 4. Saraswati Devi, W/o Vishwakarma Mahto. 5. Balkesha Devi, W/o Rikhi Mahto. 6. Surendra Kumar, S/o Vishwakarma Mahto. All residents of Village Satjora Police Station Daraundha, District – Siwan. 7. Harendra Prasad, S/o Dayanidhi Mahto. 8. Madhuri Devi, W/o Harendra Prasad. Both resident of village Akil Tola, P.S.- Maharajganj, Siwan. 9. Ganesh Mahto, S/o Dhandhari Mahto. 10. Ramadhar Mahto, S/o Dhalmanal Mahto. Both resident of village – Asahani, P.S. – Rasulpur, District – Chapra. ........... Accused.............. Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Virendra Mahto, S/o Late Magha Mahto, Resident of village – Asahani, P.S.- Rasulpur, District –Chapra. Complainant........... Opp. Party. ----------- 2 23.03.2011 Heard Sri Anshay Bahadur Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The present petition has been filed with a prayer to restore Cr. Misc. No. 7516 of 2001, which stood rejected on 12.8.2010, due to non- prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that due to fault on the part of the Clerk of learned counsel, the case was not marked, and as such, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner on, 12.8.2010 and case was rejected due to non-prosecution. This fact has been mentioned in paragraph nos. 1 & 2, of the restoration petition. Cr. Misc. No. 7516 of 2001, was firstly taken up on 11.8.2010, under the heading “For Hearing”. On the said date, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The case was adjourned with an indication that no further adjournment shall be granted. While adjourning, this court also noticed, that in this case interim order of stay was continuing since 4.12.2001. 2 Again on 12.8.2010, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, either to press the petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. Accordingly, the petition stood rejected due to non-prosecution. The ground set forth in the petition is not sufficient to persuade this court to allow the restoration petition. Restoration petition stands rejected. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)