IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2450 of 2007 PRAMOD KUMAR JAISWAL Versus JAI SINGH ----------- 2 16.12.2008 Heard Mr. A.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, a mere default of one day i.e 21.7.2007 ought to have not weighed so heavily which could have led to dismissal of the Misc. case of the year, 2003 as has been done by the Court below in the impugned order. The entire order-sheet would infact go to show that the petitioner was present on almost each and every date and therefore, if for some reason the petitioner was not present on 21.7.2007 the Misc. Case No.04/03 should not have been straight way dismissed. At the same time, this also does not become clear that as to why the petitioner instead of moving that very Court had chosen to come to this Court and kept the matter pending for more than one and half years. It was always possible for the petitioner to initially make a prayer before that very Court to restore that Misc. case explaining the reason of such default of that particular date. It therefore, becomes clear that the whole idea of - 2 - the petitioner also is to keep the litigation pending on one pretext or other. Therefore, while this Court would allow the prayer of the petitioner and set aside the impugned order but then as he is found to have been harassing the opposite parties, he must pay a cost of Rs. 2500/- which will be a condition precedent for restoration of the Misc. Case No.04/03 . The amount of Rs. 2500/- must be paid to the decree holder-opposite parties within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is allowed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)