IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.60 of 2008 1. Md. Saghiruddin @ Md. Sagir Ajmal, Son of Late Khursid Ali. 2. Safarra Khatoon @ Safaira Khatoon, wife of Md. Nijam Tailor. 3. Soghara Khatoon @ Sogra Khatoon, wife of late Md. Zaimuddin. 4. Majmun Nissa @ Najmun Nissa, wife of Abdul Hassan. 5. Taslima Khatoon, wife of Md. Nazamuddin. All sons and daughter of late Khursid Ali. 6. Md. Sagir Ajmal @ Md. Saghiruddin, son of late Khurshid Ali. 7. Sogra Khatoon @ Soghrakhatoon, wife of Zaimuddin. 8. Najmunnisa @ Majmun Nisa, wife of late Abdul Hassan, Manourvar, C/o Master Jaiber. All are residents of Mohalla-Ansar Nagar, P.S.-Nawada, District-Nawada. 9. Safarra Khatoon @ Safaira Khatoon, wife of late Nizam Tailor, P.O.-Sejri Parah, Sundergarh, Orissa. 10. Jasmila Khatoon @ Taslima Khatoon, wife of Md. Nazamuddin, P.O.- Dhanaul, District-Nawada. Both r/o village, Mohalla-Ansar Nagar, P.S.-Nawada, District-Nawada. …………Plaintiffs……Appellants/Petitioners. Versus 1. Bibi Rajda Khatoon, wife of Md. Nezamuddin, resident of Mohalla-Moglakhar, P.S.-Nawadah, District-Nawadah. 2. Amna Khatoon, daughter of late Khursid Ali, wife of late Md. Israil. 3. Shamsun Nissa, daughter of late Khursid Ali, wife of Md. Idrish. Both are residents of village-Konanand, P.S.-Asthawan, District- Nalanda. 4. Md. Khalil Ahmad, Son of Rahat Hussain, resident of Mohalla- Bhadauni, P.S.-Nawadah, District-Nawadah. 5. Abdul Mannan, Son of late Nabi Bux, resident of village- Pakribarawan, P.S.-Pakaribarawan, District-Nawadah. ……….Defendants/Respondents, Respondents/Opp. Parties. ----------- 6/ 13.01.2010 I.A. No. 1470 of 2008 has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the review application. Considering the reasons mentioned therein for delay of sixty days in filing the review application. The delay is condoned. I.A. No. 1470 of 2008 is allowed. This review application has been filed by the appellants of Second Appeal No. 251 of 2003 for review of order dated 2 04.01.2008 passed in S.A. No. 251 of 2003 whereby the appeal was dismissed on merit on non-appearance of the counsel for the appellants. The ground taken by the appellants is that in absence of the counsel for the appellant the appeal could not have been dismissed considering merit of the appeal, either it should have been adjourned or dismissed for non-prosecution. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on a decision reported in 2009 (1) PLJR 836. Considering the submissions made by the petitioners’ counsel as well as the counsel appearing for opposite party and relying upon the decision reported in 2009 (1) PLJR 836, the review application is allowed. S.A. No. 251 of 2003 is restored to its original file. The second appeal should be listed for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the CPC. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)