IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2289 of 2007 SUNIL KUMAR @ SUNIL KUMAR BARNAWAL & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 2.9.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. This Court would not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, inasmuch as even if everything is given on discount, the aspect which cannot be approved is that when an application was filed for recall of an ex-parte order dated 22.4.1997, at a stage when the evidence was still to be adduced and completed by the plaintiff, how could that application be dismissed on 18.12.1997 and on the same day the judgment could have been pronounced by the Court below without recording even an order for closure of evidence of the plaintiff and fixing the case for hearing arguments of both the sides. The proceedings of 18.12.1997, thus was wholly vitiated and if the court below having recorded a clear finding that there was no valid service of notice/summons on defendant no.5 has set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, this Court would not interfere with such impugned order which seeks to only to restore the 2 suit for its being decided in accordance with law. At this stage counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is a suit of the year 1984 and therefore, even after 24 years when the matter has now been reduced to squire one, it would be an essential and in fact would meet the ends of justice if the suit is directed to be disposed of expeditiously. Such prayer being wholly reasonable, this Court while affirming the impugned order would direct the trial court to take the suit for expeditious hearing and to ensure that the same is disposed of within a period of one year from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is disposed of. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/