IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.456 of 2009 1. Vijay Kumar Singh alias Vijay Singh 2. Ajay Kumar Singh alias Ajay Singh Both sons of late Parsuram Singh, resident of village –Desari, PO & PS Desari, District Vaishali ...Respondents 2nd party/ Opposite 2nd Party/Petitioners Versus Kurban Ali son of late Karamuddin, resident of village – Zarfarabad, PS Desari, Dt. Vaishali & Others ....Opposite Parties ----------- 09- 22/11/2011 None appears on behalf of the petitioners. Heard Ms. Susmita Mishra for opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 6 (the plaintiffs). This revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 12.12.2008, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been restored to its file for consideration on merits. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this application may be indicated. Opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 6 (the plaintiffs) had instituted Title Suit no.88/60, which was decreed in part. Aggrieved by that part of the judgment and decree whereby the suit was dismissed, the plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal no. 193/65, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 24.5.89. The appellants (plaintiffs) filed Misc. Case no.15/89 under the provisions of Order 41, rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was dismissed by the learned appellate 2 court by his order dated 12.12.89, inter alia, on the ground that they had not filed application for condonation of the delay in filing the misc. case. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiffs preferred Misc. Appeal no.14/90 in this court, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 11.9.97, the order dated 12.12.89 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the learned appellate court for reconsideration of Misc. Case no.15/89 alongwith the issues relating to limitation. The learned appellate court has carried out the remand order, has condoned the delay in filing the same, allowed the misc. case with cost, and restored Title Appeal no.193/65 for consideration on merits. Hence this civil revision application at the instance of the respondents 2nd set to the appeal. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties. It has been found in the impugned order that the appellants cannot be faulted for dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. He has also condoned the delay in exercise of the civil revisional jurisdiction. We entirely agree with the reasoning assigned by the learned appellate court. 3 4. This civil revision application is accordingly dismissed. mrl ( S K Katriar, J. )