IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.806 of 2008 Tabassum Khanam @ Tabassum Khatoon, widow of late Md. Fatesh Alam, resident of Village Driver Tola, PS Katihar, District Katihar..Petitioner/Petitioner Versus 1. Abdul Rasheed , son of late Gayasuddin, resident of Village – Finsaha, PS Simri, Bakhtiyarpur, District Saharsa 2. Md. Aftab Alam alias Chand Babo son of late Fateh Alam, resident of Village Driver Tola, PS Katihar, District Katihar 3. Md. Imam Hussain, son of late Fateh Alam, resident of Village Driver Tola, PS Katihar, District Katihar 4. Tarannum, daughter of Late Fateh Alam, resident of Village Driver Tola, PS Katihar, District Katihar, minor under the guardian ship of her mother 5. Md. Faisal Alam, son of late Fateh Alam, resident of Village – Finsaha, PS Simri, Bakhtiyarpur, District Saharsa, minor through guardian and next friend namely Abdul Rasheed (grandfather) 6. Zebba Tarannum @ Tiku, daughter of late Fateh Alam, resident of Village– Finsaha, PS Simri, Bakhtiyarpur, District Saharsa, minor through guardian and next friend Abdul Rasheed (grandfather) .......Opp. Parties/Opp.parties ----------- 18- 21.10.2011 The plaintiff has preferred this application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is directed against the order dated 15.9.2006, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge 1st court, Katihar, in Succession Case no.14 of 1995, whereby the same has been dismissed for non-prosecution. The opposite parties have not appeared inspite of valid service of notice. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. The succession case was filed in 1995, and remained pending before the learned trial court till 15.9.2006 on which date it was dismissed on account of non-appearance of learned counsel for the petitioner on a number of days. This is a valid reason to dismiss the case for non- 2 prosecution. However, there is another facet of the matter which may be noticed. As stated earlier, the matter remained pending before the learned trial court for eleven years which may happen for diverse reasons. Often times the court did not take adequate interest in disposing of the matters, on another occasion the defendant/opposite party purposely did not take interest in order to delay the disposal of the matter. There are occasions when the plaintiff/petitioner also does not take adequate interest, and very often takes adequate interest because he suffers from litigation-fatigue. The parties keep on running to courts and return without any progress in the matter. The plaintiff/petitioner also at times delays disposal of the matter because interim order has been passed in his favour. The present petitioner is a widow and has been left high and dry in life after the demise of her husband. In such a situation, I would prefer to give her another opportunity to pursue her case diligently which must not be abused. The impugned order dated 15.9.2006 is, therefore, set aside. The learned trial court is hereby directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously. 3. This civil revision application is allowed. mrl ( S K Katriar )