RAMGATI DEVI Vs. CHANDRA SHEKHAR RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 26.9.2005 passed by Subordinate Judge, III, Muzaffarpur in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2002, whereby the prayer made by the plaintiffs -petitioners for restoration of T.S. No. 233 of 1995, has been rejected.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present application are that the plaintiffs ' suit was dismissed by order dated 22.5.2001. For setting aside the said dismissal order, plaintiffs filed application which was registered as Misc. Case No. 9 of 2001. By order dated 12.9.2001, said suit was restored and the plaintiffs were directed to file the requisites for issuing summons to the defendants by 20.9.2001, the next date fixed in the case. After the restoration of the suit, same was posted for consideration on 20.9.2001 and the Court adjourned the case to 6.10.2001 for filing the requisites. On 6.10.2001 and 21.11.2001, the dates fixed in the case, plaintiffs did not file the requisites and ultimately filed it on 29.11.2001 when the court adjourned the case to 21.6.2002 directing issuance of summons to the defendants. Thereafter, on 21.11.2002, the court again adjourned the case to 22.2.2002 for issuance of summons. Thereafter, it seems that the Presiding Officer of the court was transferred and when the matter was taken up on 22.2.2002 and 21.3.2002 by the court, it directed the office to take appropriate steps for compliance of the order referred to above. Order to the same effect was passed on 29.4.2002 while adjourning the case to 1.6.2002. It seems that thereafter a note was put up by the office that the plaintiffs have not filed the postal stamps and by order dated 1.6.2002, while adjourning the case to 16.3.2002, plaintiffs were directed to file the postal stamp. When the matter was taken up on 13.6.2002, it was found that the plaintiffs have not filed the postal stamps as directed earlier but they were given further time to file the postal stamps and the case was adjourned to 21.6.2002. On 21.6.2002, the court having found that the plaintiffs had not complied the earlier order, dismissed the suit for non -compliance of the order.

(3.) MR . Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, raises a very short point. He submits that while considering the present application, the previous conduct of the plaintiffs ought not to have been seen. He points out that the cause shown by the plaintiffs was considered by the Court and ultimately finding the same to be sufficient cause, by order dated 12.9.2001 passed in Misc. Case No. 9 of 2001, suit was restored.