IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2911 of 2010 SMT. RADHA DEVI & ORS. Versus SMT. SIYA DEVI & ORS. ----------- 04/ 23.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. I.A. No.10588 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioners for condoning the delay in filing of the M.J.C. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the statements made in the interlocutory application, the same is allowed and delay in filing of the M.J.C. case is condoned. This M.J.C. petition has been filed for restoration of C.R. No.922 of 2001 which was dismissed for default by this court vide order dated 11.08.2005 due to non- prosecution. Although learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners, but from the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the statements contained in the petition it appears that genuine reasons have been shown which prevented learned counsel for the petitioners from appearing in court on the said date. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and C.R.No.922 of 2001 is restored to its original file and number. However, this order will be subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000.00 by the petitioners to Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey learned counsel for the opposite parties within one month from today. 2 Since the civil revision is about a decade old, learned counsel for the parties are permitted to mention the same for early posting before the appropriate Bench. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)