IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8992 of 2003 ANANT KUMAR CHOUDHARY @ ANANT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 3.5.2010 Heard Mr. Shivaji Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one appears for respondent No.4, although he has entered appearance by filing vakalatnama. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that earlier a compromise was entered into between the parties on the basis of which I.A. No.2013 of 2006 has been filed in which an affidavit has been sworn both by the petitioner and respondent No.4. In the said compromise petition, it is stated that the petitioner has paid all legal dues to Atwari Kumar Jaiswal, respondent No.4, and no further dues remain to be paid and in the said changed circumstances the impugned order dated 19.6.2003 should be quashed, as the said order has been satisfied. Despite the matter being adjourned on several dates, Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has not chosen to appear before this Court, although it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has - 2 - personally informed him about the matter. Such action on the part of learned counsel, who is an officer of the Court, is not justified, particularly in view of the fact that a joint compromise petition had been filed both by the petitioner and the said respondent No.4. In any view of the matter since the impugned order itself has been satisfied, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no useful purpose can be served in pursuing the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )