IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.87 of 2004 ANWAR KHAN Versus ANJUM PARWEZ & ANR ----------- 13/ 08.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Nobody appears for the respondents. Notice against them could be said to have been validly served. The simple prayer is for restoration of Title Appeal No. 27 of 1985 in which the present appellant figured as the appellant which was dismissed as nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant in the court below on 6.5.2003. A petition was filed under Order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C. praying therein to set aside the order dated 6.5.2003 whereby and whereunder Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 3 of 1997 was dismissed on 6.5.2003. Detailed reasoned order while refusing prayer of the appellant has been recorded by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Nawadah. But, having considered fact, circumstance and averments made in the petition, suffice would be to say, that an opportunity to contest the matter should be given to the appellant so that hearing in the matter could be concluded within shortest possible time and disposed of on merit. The impugned order dated 17.02.2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nawadah, in Misc. Appeal No. 2/2003 / - 2 - 12/2003 is, thus, set aside and the matter is sent back to the court below to hear the matter on merit and decide within shortest possible time avoiding all sorts of adjournments. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Sanjeet (Subash Chandra Jha, J.)