IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.374 of 2008 Raj Ballabh Singh, son of late Ramchandra Singh, resident of Village-Parariya P.O & P.S. Belaganj, District-Gaya (Plaintiff) ---- Petitioner. Versus 1. Surendra Singh 2. Birendra Singh, both sons of late Jagan Singh 3. Radha Devi, wife of late Sheo Ballabha Singh 4. Almati Devi wife of late Krishna Singh 5. Sanjay Singh son of late Krishna Singh, all residents of Village Pararia, Police Station & Post Office Belaganj, District-Gaya. 6. Manoj Singh 7. Munna Singh, both sons of late Sheo Ballabha Singh 8. Soni Kumari daughter of late Sheo Ballabh Singh 9. Renu Devi wife of Sunil Singh, all of V. Pararia, Post Office Parariya, District Gaya. 10. Rekha Devi wife of Basant Sharma, resident of village- Dhanawan, Post Office Belaganj, District- Gaya. 11. Md. Jayauddin, son of Md. Moiuddin 12. Md. Gulam Sarbar Hussain 13. Md. Parwez Alam 14. Md. Aslam Israr 15. Md. Akil nos. 12 to 15 are sons of Md. Idris 16. Md. Aurangzeb 17. Md. Ashahar Jahan, sons of Md. Alamgir, the minors under the guardianship of their father and well wisher. 18. Md. Aslam Ansari son of late Ali Ahmad Ansari 19. Md. Munna Ansari son of –do-, all residents of Village Parariya Police Station and Post Office Belaganj, District- Gaya ---- Defendant --- Opposite Parties. ------------- 2. 2.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 35 of 2000 (Raj Ballabh Singh Vrs. Surendra Singh), which stood dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 14.12.2007. 2 We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that, during the pendency of the suit, necessity arose of taking steps for appointment of Guardian Ad-Litem of minor defendant nos. 16 and 17. Ever since 8.12.2008, repeated opportunities were granted to the plaintiff to take requisite steps which they failed to do. The lawyer ultimately recorded in the file that he has no instructions in the matter leading to dismissal of the suit. The same has, therefore, been dismissed for a valid reason. The suit can not be allowed to linger in this manner and left to the mercy of the plaintiff and to the detriment and prejudice of the defendant. It further appears that the suit was earlier dismissed for non-prosecution and was restored notwithstanding which the plaintiffs did not improve leading to dismissal of the aforesaid suit. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. It is accordingly rejected. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. )