IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.216 of 2011 Sukhdeo Pd. Mandal & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors For the Petitioner: Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma and Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. For Opposite Party No.1: J.C. to S.C.VI. ---------------------------------- 4. 20.12.2011 Heard Mr.Jitendra Kishore Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1 represented by Ajay Kumar J.C. to S.C.6, Mr.J.S.Arora. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no notice is required to opposite party no.1 who is only a proforma opposite party in this revision application and this revision application may be heard and disposed of at this stage itself. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has also agreed to this course. As such, this revision application is being heard finally. By the impugned order, the court below has rejected the Miscellaneous Case No.35/09 whereby the prayer has been made by the plaintiff-petitioner for restoration of T.S.No. 140/99 which has been 2 dismissed on 14.07.2009 holding that the plaintiff had no interest in pursuing the suit. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that in fact on 14.07.2009 the suit had not been posted for hearing rather on that date the injunction petition filed by the plaintiff was to be heard. By referring to the impugned order itself the learned counsel has shown that the date 14.07.2009 had been fixed for hearing on the injunction petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.1 has opposed the contention made on behalf of the petitioners and has supported the impugned order. After perusal of the impugned order and considering the submissions of the parties it appears that the suit had not been posted for hearing on 14.07.2009 rather from the impugned order itself it is clear that the said date was fixed for hearing on the injunction petition. It is another matter that the plaintiff had conducted himself badly in pursuing his injunction petition and kept the same pending for seven years but the said factor could be relevant only for the purpose of 3 rejecting the injunction petition and could not have been made a ground for dismissing the suit itself. It is well settled that a suit can be dismissed for non- prosecution only when the same has been posted for hearing and on that date of the hearing the court is satisfied that the plaintiff has no interest in pursuing the suit. As such the court below has committed error of jurisdiction in rejecting the Miscellaneous Case No.35/09 and not restoring the suit to its original position. Thus the revision application is allowed the impugned order is set aside and T.S.No. 140/99 is restored to its original position. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)