IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2241 of 2025 In SECOND APPEAL No.500 of 1998 ====================================================== Nand Lal Nayak S/o Late Kailu Nayak, R/o Village Gulab Bagh, P.S Sadar, District Purnia. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Purnia. 2. Mossamat Mayabati Devi W/o Late Shambhu Prasad Nayak, R/o Village Gulabbagh, PS Sadar, District Purnia. 3. Pankaj Kumar Nayak Son of Late Shambhu Prasad Nayak, R/o Village Gulabbag, PS Sadar, District Purnia. 4. Rajendra Prasad Nayak Son of Late Shambhu Prasad Nayak, R/o Village Gulabbag, PS Sadar, District Purnia. 5. Kamal Kumar Nayak Son of Late Shambhu Prasad Nayak, R/o Village Gulabbag, PS Sadar, District Purnia. 6. Manish Kumar Nayak Son of Late Shambhu Prasad Nayak, R/o Village Gulabbag, PS Sadar, District Purnia. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. U.S.S. Singh, G.P. 19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER 3 31-10-2025 1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order-IX, Rule 4 of the CPC for restoration of S.A. No. 500 of 1998, which was dismissed for default on 6th of December, 2024. 2. By filing the instant application, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner could not take steps in the appeal Patna High Court MJC No.2241 of 2025(3) dt.31-10-2025 2/3 because of the fact that the Advocate on record passed away during Corona Pandemic. Moreover, the original appellant also died on 1st of December, 2009. The legal heirs and successors have no knowledge about the pendency of the instant appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for default on 6th of December, 2024. 3. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent / State of Bihar. 4. The grounds mentioned in the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 suggests that the petitioner was sufficiently prevented from taking steps on the date when the matter was dismissed for default. 5. Accordingly, the delay in filing the application for restoration is condoned. 6. The application under Order-IX, Rule-4 is taken up for hearing. 7. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. 8. The grounds set forth by the petitioner is found Patna High Court MJC No.2241 of 2025(3) dt.31-10-2025 3/3 to be satisfactory. 9. Therefore, the petition under Order-IX, Rule-4 is allowed. 10. S.A. No. 500 of 1998 is restored to its original file. skm/- (Bibek Chaudhuri, J) U