IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1585 of 2008 1. Bhakti Bhushan Singh 2. Shakti Bhushan Singh 3. Bani Bhushan Singh 4. Chandra Bhushan Singh 5. Shashi Bhusan Singh, all sons of late Devanand Singh, all residents of Village Naga Tola, Goraiya Asthan, P.O. Beyapur, P.S. Maner, District- Patna ---- Defendants---- Appellants -----Petitioners. Versus 1. Sri Sarbanand Sinha, S/O late Sarjug Singh 2. Manoranjan Kumar, minor S/O Sarbanand Sinha 3. Priyaranjan Kumar minor S/O Sarbanand Sinha, both are under guardianship of their father Sarbanand Sinha, all residents of Village Naga Tola, Goraiya Asthan, P.O. Beyapur, P.S. Maner, District-Patna at present R/O Mohalla Sadar Bajar, Danapur Cantt, Distt. Patna ---- Plaintiffs --- Respondents ---- Opposite Party Ist Set. 4. Brajbhusan Singh S/O late Devanand Singh, resident of Village Naga Tola, Goraiya Asthan, P.O. Beyapur, P.S. Maner, District- Patna. 5. Smt. Sundarpati Devi W/O Sarbanand Singh, R/O Village Naga Tola, Goraiya Asthan, P.O. Beyapur, P.S. Maner, District-Patna at present R/O Mohalla Sadar Bajar, Danapur Cantt, Distt.Patna. 6. Smt. Bindhyachali Devi. w/O late Rajnandan Singh R/O Village Nagthan, P.O. Chhota, P.S. Masaurhi, Distt. Patna. 7. Sri Ram Nandan Singh, S/O Sri Mishri Lal Singh 8. Smt. Lagmano Devi W/O Sri Munshilal Singh, both R/O Village Hulsi Tola, P.O. & P.S. Maner, Distt. Patna ---- Defendants --- Respondents --- Opposite Party 2nd Set. -------------- 3. 7.7.2010 Heard Mr. Rewti Kant Raman for the petitioner. This application has been for recall and/or modification of the order dated 18.8.2004 passed in F.A. No.6 of 1993 for non-compliance of which the appeal stood dismissed. We have perused the materials on record and 2 considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the appeal was laid before the learned Lawazima Board on 16.4.2004 and as prayed for by learned counsel for the appellants three weeks time was allowed to take steps for fresh service of notice on respondent nos. 4 to 6. The same was not complied with as a result of which by order dated 18.8.2004 passed by the Bench peremptory order was passed whereby four weeks further time was granted to take the requisite steps. The same was also not complied with leading to dismissal of the appeal. It appears that it is a case of gross negligence and burdening this Court with most unwanted matter. It arises out of a partition suit. We are not inclined to recall the order dated 18.8.2004. This application is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )