Sachchidanand Singh v. Hari Prasad Gupta

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 2 10-05-2012 Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

By the impugned order the court below has restored the suit which stood dismissed in default for non-appearance. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the suit was filed by the plaintiff on frivolous ground that the defendants were going to encroach the land of the plaintiff and on that basis the plaintiff also obtained the order for maintenance of status quo. It has been 2 Patna High Court C.R. No.634 of 2010 (2) dt.10-05-2012 further submitted by the learned counsel that the main intention of the plaintiff is to linger the matter and he does not want disposal of the suit on merits. The learned counsel has argued that the court below should not have exercised its discretion in restoring the suit as the negligence of the plaintiff is writ large from the records.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the court below has exercised its discretion, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in restoring the suit to its original file. Therefore, there is no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order.

This civil revision is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in view of the submissions on behalf of the petitioner and also in view of the fact that the suit has been filed in the year 2001 and the interim order of status quo is also continuing, the court below is directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law within nine months of the receipt/production of this order. B.Roy/- (V. Nath, J)