IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA L.P.A. No. 906 of 2003 Smt. Manjula Singh widow of Late Gauri Nandan Singh, Resident of Mohalla Prem Cottage, Rai Bahadur Sukhraj Rai Road, Khanjarpur, P.S. Khanjarpur, District-Bhagalpur ---- Plaintiff/Petitioner --- Appellant. Versus 1. Usha Nandan Singh, son of late Durganandan Singh, resident of Mohalla & P.S. Khanjarpur, Town & Dist.- Bhagalpur. 2. Braj Nandan Singh son of Anand Nandan Singh, Resident of Village + P.O. Khajra Deorhi, District- Madhubani. 3. Kamala Devi wife of Bimla Nand Jha 3(a) Lallanjee 3(b) Pappu 3© Raju, All sons of Bimla Nand Jha, resident of Village Lakhnaur, P.S. Madhepur, District- Madhubani 4. Shankar Kumar Singh Jha, son of Late Kishore Singh Resident of Mohalla-IInd Floor, Chatterjee Lane, Naya Tola, Muzaffarpur. 5. Meena Devi, daughter of late Durganandan Singh, resident of Mohalla-Naya Tola, P.S. Nayatola, District-Muzaffarpur. ---- Defendants/ Respondents ---- Respondents. --------- 12. 18.12.2009 Heard Mr. Shidheshwari Prasad Singh for the appellant. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of M.J.C. No. 402 of 2003, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 28.4.2003, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court has refused to set aside the order of dismissal of the main matter, and has dismissed the restoration application. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. The appellant herein had instituted Testamentary Case No.02 of 1996, which was renumbered as Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 1997. It was placed before a learned Single Judge on 10.1.2003, on which date the following order was passed: “No one appears on behalf of the plaintiff. List it on 31.1.2003. On the said date plaintiff shall produce 2 his witnesses.” It was again taken up on 31.1.2003 and the following order was passed: “Nobody appears on behalf of the plaintiff. Two weeks time is granted to remove the defect as pointed out by the office. Nobody appears on behalf of plaintiff. Mr. Sharda Nand Jha appears on behalf of defendant. List it after two weeks. In case nobody shall appear on the next date, this Court may consider directing for dismissal of the suit.” It was again laid before a learned Single Judge on 21.2.2003 and the following order was passed dismissing the suit for want of prosecution: “When the matter was taken up on 31.1.2003 nobody appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. However, showing indulgence the case was adjourned for today and it was made clear that in case nobody appears on behalf of the plaintiff on the next date, Court may consider directing for dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. Today also nobody appears on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr. Sharda Nand Jha appears on behalf of the defendant. This application is dismissed for want of prosecution.” The appellant herein, therefore, preferred the aforesaid restoration application bearing M.J.C. No. 402 of 2003, which has been rejected by order dated 28.4.2003, with the observation that “…No cause, much less sufficient cause, has been shown for restoration of the application. Application stands dismissed.” 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the main matter was really instituted in this court on 3 4.7.1996, and was numbered as Testamentary Case No. 2 of 1996. It was later on re-numbered as Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 1997. In other words, this shows the age of the main matter. It is quite clear that it was an old matter and, therefore, it required disposal expeditiously which the appellant did not realize. None appeared on behalf of the appellant on successive dates. The order-sheet of Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 1997 discloses a case of complete negligence and purposive evasion of court proceedings. This Court was compelled to record the requisite warning on 31.1.2003, that in case of non-appearance of learned counsel for the petitioner on the next date, the Court may consider directing the dismissal of the suit, notwithstanding which none appeared on 21.2.2003, leading to dismissal of the main matter. We entirely agree with order dated 28.4.2003. We are not inclined to interfere with the same. 4. The appeal is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)