Patna High Court
FA/114/1995 of Suresh Prasad Vs Mithilesh Kumar on 2 July 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA FIRST APPEAL No.114 of 1995 ====================================================== 1. Suresh Prasad Son of Late Manu Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Pirbahore, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna. 2. Kuneel Kumar, Son of Late Manu Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Pirbahore, P.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
FIRST APPEAL No.114 of 1995
======================================================
1.
Suresh Prasad Son of Late Manu Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Pirbahore, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna.
2.
Kuneel Kumar, Son of Late Manu Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Pirbahore, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna.
3.
Most. Tara Devi, Wife of Late Manu Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Pirbahore, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
Mithilesh Kumar son of Shri Laxmi Chand alias Laxmi Garai, Resident of Village Gosalpur, P.S. Hilsa District Nalanda at present residing at Mohalla Mahendru P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Sultanganj, District Patna.
2.
Ram Babu, Son of Late Rameshwar Ram, Resident of Mohalla Dariapur, Koiritola, P.O. Bankipur, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna.
3.
Asha Devi, Wife of Ram Babu, Resident of Mohalla Dariapur, Koiritola, P.O. Bankipur, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s
:
Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s
:
Mr. Arjun Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
02-07-2026 Perused the office notes.
2. The office has pointed out that despite the order dated 16.06.2026 granting time to the learned counsel for the appellants to deposit the deficit court fee stamp of Rs. 189.35/- has not yet been deposited.
3. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellants.
4. From perusal of the record, this Court finds from the earlier order dated 17.03.2026, none had appeared on behalf of the appellants, however the Court had granted, by way of last Patna High Court FA No.114 of 1995(20) dt.02-07-2026
indulgence, eight weeks time to deposit the said deficit court fee stamp and thereafter again on 16.06.2026, the learned counsel for the appellants was directed to deposit the court fee by 30.06.2026.
5. In view of the aforesaid and taking into account the fact that despite indulgence being given to the learned counsel for the appellants, the deficit court fee stamp has not yet been deposited, which shows that the appellants have lost their interest in this appeal.
6. The appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
krishna/- (Sourendra Pandey, J) U