IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.425 of 2004 1. Kaushalya Devi, widow of Late Ganni Tanti 2. Subodh Tanti, 3. Mahesh Tanti 4. Umesh Tanti 5. Jitendra Tanti 6. Dharmendra Tanti 7. Janaki Kumari 8. Anjani Kumari Serial no.2 to 8 are minor sons and daughters of Late Ganni Tanti under the guardianship of their mother and natural guardian and next friend – Kaushalya Devi – claimant no.1. All are resident of village – Doi, P.S. Meharma, District Godda, presently residing at Barahat, P.S. Pirpaity, District Bhagalpur. (Serial No.1 to 8 are claimants). ... ... Appellants. Versus 1. Shambhunath Pandey, son of Late Indra Mohan Pandey, resident of village Bhadariya, P.S. Amarpur, District Banka. (Opposite Party No.1). 2. Bajrang Lal Agrawal, son of Late Bidha Ram Agrawal, resident of Shivaji Road Ramgarh Cantt, District Ramgarh. Presently residing at Village Bagodar, P.S. Bagodar, District Giridhi. (Owner of Vehicle No.JH-11A- 5907). (Opposite Party No.2). 3. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd, Ramgarh Branch, Ramgarh, P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh. (Opposite Party no.3). 4. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Bhagalpur having its office at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, P.S. Kotwali, District Bhagalpur. (Opposite Party No.4). ... ... Respondents. ---------------------------------- 13. 29.8.2011. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on Interlocutory Application i.e. I.A. No.5688 of 2011, which has been filed firstly for modification of order dated 5.8.2011, whereby a peremptory order was passed for filing paper cutting through proper petition. It has further been prayed for handing over fresh draft for its 2 publication in the newspaper in compliance with order dated 22.8.2008. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in compliance with the order dated 22.8.2008, drafts for its publication in Hindu newspaper “Prabhat Khabar” and English “Times of India” for substituted service of notice on respondent no.2 was handed over to the learned counsel for the appellant. However, due to communication gap, it could not be got published in the newspaper. Fact remains that draft for publication was handed over to the learned counsel for the appellant long back and thereafter, a peremptory order was passed by this Court, that too, after more than two years on 5.8.2011. The court is of the opinion that order dated 5.8.2011, in view of the facts and circumstances, is not required to be modified or recalled. I.A. stands dismissed. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)