HEMANT GUPTA, ACJ.:–Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 21st of August, 2013 whereby, the writ application was dismissed for the reason that the earlier writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No.5508 of 1986 stood dismissed by the order dated 22nd August, 1997. 3. Learned Single Judge has found that challenge in the earlier writ application is to an order dated 9th of August, 1978 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (D.C.L.R.), an order dated 29th of March, 1984 passed by the Additional Collector, Saharsa and the order dated 25th February, 1986 passed by the Commissioner. Such orders were challenged in C.W.J.C. No. C.W.J.C. No.5508 of 1986 which was dismissed on 22nd of August, 1997, when the following order was passed:— “The writ petition was filed by the petitioners with certain claims in which one Magan Yadav was made party-Respondent No.1. The writ petition stood dismissed as against Respondent No.1, Magan Yadav, for non–compliance of this Court’s order dated 30th November, 1990. This was brought to the notice of the Court by office, but by order dated 26th April, 1991, it was ordered that the maintainability of the case will be considered at the time of hearing of the case. Subsequently, the said Respondent No.1 died in the year 1994 and the same was brought to the notice of this Court by petition filed by his heirs at Flag-O. Inspite of the same, no step was taken on behalf of the petitioners to restore the writ petition against the original Respondent No.1, Magan Yadav and/or to substitute his heirs as party-Respondents. In absence of Magan Yadav, this writ petition cannot proceed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being not maintainable.” 4. It is thereafter the present writ petition was filed in 2001 which stands dismissed by the order impugned in the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the earlier writ application was not dismissed on merits and, therefore, there could not be any res judicata, as has been held by the learned Single Bench. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in law to that extent that it will not amount to res judicata, but the fact remains that challenge to the said orders remained unsuccessful in earlier writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in law to that extent that it will not amount to res judicata, but the fact remains that challenge to the said orders remained unsuccessful in earlier writ petition. Once the writ petition is dismissed, the appellant cannot file another writ petition challenging the same orders. The dismissal of the writ petition on any ground amounts to merger of the orders under challenge in the order passed by this Court. The appellants had to seek their remedy against the order passed by the learned Single Bench on 22nd of August, 1997. Since the said order has not been disputed in any manner, the subsequent writ petition challenging the same orders is not maintainable. A Co-ordinate Bench cannot sit over the judgment passed in the earlier writ application. 6. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present Appeal. 7. The present Appeal is accordingly dismissed.