Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Default on the part of the petitioner is recorded in order dated 08.12.2017, which reads as under: "The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 17.10.2011 passed in Title Suit No.28 of 2007 by which application for taking additional documents has been allowed with cost of Rs.500/. This writ petition was filed on 01.12.2011 and on 16.03.2012 notices were issued to the respondents for which the petitioner was directed to take steps for filing requisites within two weeks. On the next date of hearing, that is, on 28.08.2012 taking cognizance of an application vide I.A. No.2118 of 2012 further proceeding in Title Suit No.28 of 2007 was stayed by this Court. On that day, respondent no.5 had entered appearance. Thereafter the matter appeared on Board on 11.09.2012, 19.09.2012, 03.10.2012, 09.07.2014, 16.07.2014, 30.07.2014, 04.08.2014 and 11.08.2014. The Registry has reported that service of notice upon the respondents is not complete. The records would disclose that only respondent no.5 has entered his appearance through Vakalatnama on 25.04.2012 and filed counteraffidavit in the matter on 19.09.2012. The petitioner has failed to take steps for service of notice upon the respondents though the matter appeared on Board on as many as eight occasions after this Court passed an order on 28.08.2012, staying further proceeding in Title Suit No.28 of 2007. On request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of last indulgence, the petitioner is permitted to take steps for service of notice upon the unserved respondents, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/ to the Jharkhand Legal Services Authority within 4 weeks. Dasti in addition. If an affidavit of proof of service of Dasti notice upon the respondents is not filed on or before 24.01.2018, the writ petition shall stand dismissed on the next date of hearing on the ground of default. Post the matter on 31.01.2018."
(2.) Pursuant to order dated 31.01.2018, Jagdish Yadav, S/o Dawrika Yadav, VillGedePratappur, PO+PSPratappur, Chatra, Jharkhand, Kalendra Kumar Gupta, S/o late Mathura Sao, VillKasmar, PostPratappur, Dist.Chatra and Ragho Prasad, S/o Baleshwar Prasad Sinha, VillKasmar, Pratappur, Dist.Chatra are present in the Court. They have produced their identity proof.
(3.) A supplementaryaffidavit dated 23.01.2018 has been filed by the petitioner on service of Dasti notice upon the respondent nos.1 to 8. The petitioner has claimed that the respondent nos.1 and 3 who are residents of Kasmar, VillPratappur, Dist.Chatra refused to receive Dasti summons. On the back of the Dasti summons issued for service upon respondent nos.1 and 3 the petitioner has given an endorsement that they have refused to accept Dasti summons. This endorsement was allegedly endorsed by Jagdish Yadav, Kalendra Kumar Gupta and Ragho Prasad. These persons, however, to a Court's question state that they have not seen respondent nos.1 and 3 in the village Kasmar, PSPratappur.;