AD. 90 and 91. July 20, 2021. MNS. RVW 3475 of 2006 + CAN 1 of 2006(CAN 6811 of 2006) + CAN 2 of 2006(CAN 6817 of 2006) + CAN 3 of 2008(CAN 1076 of 2008) + CAN 4 of 2008(CAN 1077 of 2008) Sahan Mahato and others Vs. Kinkar Mahato and others With C. O. No. 2987 of 2004 Kinkar Mahato and others Vs. Sahan Mahato and others (Via video conference) Mr. Arnab Roy …for the petitioners in C. O. No. 2987 of 2004. Re: RVW 3475 of 2006 Since none appears on behalf of the review applicants at the time of call, although learned counsel for the opposite parties in the review application is present, RVW 3475 of 2006 and the connected applications in connection with the review application are dismissed for default. There will be no order as to costs. 2 Re: C. O. No. 2987 of 2004 Since C. O. No. 2987 of 2004 was already allowed by a previous order, against which the present review application has been filed, no further order need be passed in this revisional application. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)