1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.549 of 2001 MOKAMI KRISHNA MUNI CHELA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 04/ 30.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed for restoration of the interlocutory application for substitution dated 07.07.1994 filed by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 880 of 1986, which stood dismissed for default due to non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 12.09.2004 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. K. Chattopadhyaya, as he then was, by which ten days’ time was allowed to the petitioner to serve a copy of the application for substitution on the otherside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that C.W.J.C. No. 880 of 1986 was filed on 15.02.1986 by Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate, but after sometime the sole petitioner Mokami Mahanth Hari Das, Chela of Mokami Jiwan Das died on 18.04.1992 leaving behind Mokami Mahanth Krishna Muni, Chela of Shri Ajan Muni as his legal representative, who filed an application for substitution in the said writ petition on 07.07.1994 through another counsel Dr. Ravi Ranjan. 4. It transpires that the said interlocutory application for substitution was listed on 12.09.1994 before the said Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. K. Chattopadhaya, but in the cause list only the name of learned counsel for the original deceased-petitioner was mentioned i.e. Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, whereas, the name of 2 learned counsel for the legal representative of the deceased petitioner i.e. Dr. Ravi Ranjan was not mentioned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the said reason learned counsel for the proposed heir of deceased sole petitioner could not mark the list and was not present in the court and had no knowledge or information of the said order dated 12.09.1994 passed by this Court in that case. Hence, the said order not having been complied, the writ petition stood dismissed. It was also mentioned that neither any notice nor any information slip was sent by the office to the said learned counsel and hence he was under the impression that the writ petition was continuing. However, as soon as he came to know about the said order, he filed the instant M.J.C. petition for restoration. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case as well as the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown, which prevented learned counsel for the petitioner from complying the said order of this Court dated 12.09.1994. 7. Although the names of learned Standing Counsel no.4 and learned Standing Counsel No.3 for the opposite parties are appearing in the cause list, but no one appears to oppose the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this M.J.C. petition is allowed and C.W.J.C. No. 880 of 1986 is restored to its original file and number. Learned counsel for the petitioner produces a receipt 3 showing service of a copy of the said interlocutory application for substitution upon learned counsel for the State in compliance of the said order dated 12.09.2004. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )