KEDAR VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 10th June, 2003, passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Giridih, which is at Annexure 3 to the memo of petition, whereby, the application for probate being Probate Case No. 2 of 1996, has been dismissed for default, because of the absence of the lawyer as well as for the reason that the probate duty was not paid by the original applicant, as also the order dated 29th July, 2003, passed by the same very court, which is at Annexure 4 to the memo of petition, whereby, the application filed by the applicant for recalling the order dated 10th June, 2003, has been dismissed.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner at length, who has submitted that looking to the order at Annexure 1 to the memo of petition which is dated 4th July, 2002, it appears in pursuance of the power, vested in the Committee vide Notification dated S.O. No. 1207 dated 19th August, 1981, already exemption was given to the present Petitioner from payment of probate fee. So far as absence of the lawyer is concerned, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that no client should be punished, because of absenteeism of a lawyer and, therefore, Probate Case No. 2 of 1996 may be restored to its original file and let a direction be given to the learned trial court to dispose of the Probate Case No. 2 of 1996, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within the stipulated time.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the State submitted that much time has been lapsed by now and looking to the fact that due to lethargic approach of the Petitioner, the Probate Case was dismissed for default, it may not be restored to its original file and the writ petition, filed by the Petitioner, may be dismissed.