IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15421 of 2010 1. NARSING YADAV @ NARSINH YADAV S/O ASHARFI YADAV R/O VILL.- JADIA, ANCHAL- TRIVENIGANJ, P.S.- JADIA, DISTT.- SUPAUL --- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUPAUL 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, TRIVENIGANJ, DISTT.- SUPAUL 4. THITHAR YADAV S/O LATE PATAKI YADAV R/O VILL.- JADIA, P.S.- JADIA, DISTT.- SUPAUL --- Respondents. ----------- 03 03.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 4 in spite of service of notice. Petitioner raises a grievance against the order dated 14.06.2010, passed by respondent Collector Supaul in Basgit Appeal no. 157 of 2002, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner in terms of the provision contained in Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1948, has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was unnecessarily delaying disposal of the case by not advancing final arguments. Said order dated 14.06.2010 reads as under:- “The learned counsel for petitioner seeks more time for hearing. It appears from the order sheet that he was given the last of “ the last chances” on 3.8.09 and an another chance on 10.4.10. It is undoubted that he is just causing unnecessary delay to the justice process without any reason. State further submits that the petitioner interest is delay the case. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.” Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the order sheet of the case (Annexure -3), submits that after 2 03.08.2009, the writ petitioner/appellant was present on several dates but case could not be taken up on account of the fact that respondent no. 4 had not filed appearance in the proceeding. It is submitted that the petitioner has arguable points raised in the said appeal which is the final Court of fact as provided under the scheme of Act and as such the order shall severely prejudice him. It is next submitted that if this Court grants him an opportunity then he would appear on the date(s) fixed by the respondent Collector in the matter and will argue the case without seeking adjournment. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was given indulgence(s) by the appellate authority on several occasions and having found that the appellant/writ petitioner was not interested in final disposal of the case and was only taking adjournments, the respondent Collector passed the impugned order. It is, however, not disputed by learned counsel for the State that the appeal is the final Court of fact under the scheme of the Act. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials on record including the entire order sheet enclosed with the writ petition (Annexure -3), this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice petitioner should be given one more opportunity to press his appeal before the respondent Collector. Accordingly, this Court quashes order dated 14.06.2010, passed by respondent Collector in Basgit Appeal no. 157 of 2002 3 (Narsing Yadav vs. Thithar Yadav & Ors.), and directs the petitioner to appear before the said Court within a period of 04 weeks along with a copy of the present order whereafter respondent Collector shall fix a firm date for hearing of the appeal. The writ petitioner shall utilize the said date for arguing the appeal preferred by him. It is made clear if the petitioner is not able to argue the case on that date it shall be open to the respondent Collector to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The application stands disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)