IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.244 of 2007 RAJ KUMARI DEVI & ORS . Versus NAND KISHORE PRASAD SINHA . ----------- 8. 06.01.2010 Counsel for the Review Petitioners as well as the Opposite Party are present. The review petitioners are appellants of Second Appeal No. 260 of 2003 which was decided in absence of the counsel for the appellants. The Review Application has been filed on the ground that on account of wrong printing of the name of appellants’ counsel, he could not appear when the case was taken up for hearing. Due to absence of the counsel for the appellants, the correct facts and law connected with the matter could not be brought before the court and the appeal was dismissed. In support of this contention that wrong name of the counsel was printed in the daily cause list, a copy of relevant cause list has been annexed which substantiates the stand taken by the appellants. Considering this fact, the order dated 01.11.2007 passed in S.A. No. 260/03 is being reviewed. The Second Appeal No. 260/03 is directed to be listed for fresh hearing under Order 41 rule 11 of C.P.C. AKV/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)