IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1930 of 2008 ZAIBUN NISHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 05/ 22-Dec-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This restoration petition has stood dismissed due to non compliance with order dated 20th April 2010. The restoration was allowed on the condition that the defects shall be removed within two weeks failing which the order dated 20th April 2010 shall stand recalled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only one defect could not be removed within time due to inadvertent mistake of the counsel. The office note is cryptic and silent as to whether the defects were removed or not within time. This Court finds that, prima facie, the original contempt application does not have any merit because the authorities have communicated their decision to the petitioner by Annexure-7 and probably that is the reason why nobody appeared on 17.01.2007. when the contempt petition was dismissed due to non compliance of order 2 dated 17.01.2007 due to non removal of defects within two weeks granted by the Court. It appears that petitioner is only delaying the disposal of the contempt application. However, since the petitioner’s counsel has undertaken to remove the defects in course of the day. That liberty is granted. In case, learned counsel for the petitioner removes the defects within time fixed earlier then the date shall be extended till this date otherwise earlier order shall stand. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)