IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6386 of 2010 VIMAL YADAV @ BIMAL YADAV S/O SITO YADAV R/O VILL SOKHA, TOLA- KELUADIH, P.S.KHAIRA, DISTT-JAMUI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER , REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE MEMBER , BOARD OF REVENUE OLD SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. SMT. AMITA PAUL, ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE BIHAR, PATNA 4. SRI SAMAR YADAV S/O LATE MANGER YADAV VILL SAKHO TOLA-KELUADIH, P.S.KHAIRA, DISTT-JAMUI 5. KHEMMAN SAH S/O LATE RAM SAH R/O VILL SAKHO TOLA-KELUADIH, P.S.KHAIRA, DISTT-JAMUI ----------- 04. 16.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is the preemptor, whose revision application was dismissed for default by the impugned order. The restoration application has been dismissed as hopelessly barred by limitation as the conduct of the petitioner was such that the learned Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna was not inclined to condone the delay in filing the restoration application. 3. Having perused the impugned order dated 16.4.2009, Annexure-1, I am of the view that the petitioner has suffered on account of negligence of his lawyer, who besides taking time has not been diligently prosecuting the revision application, result being that the preemptor petitioner has suffered for the act of the lawyer. The litigant should not be allowed to suffer on account of the conduct of the lawyer and considering such aspect of the matter it is directed that petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs.1,000/- in the office of the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee and produce the receipt showing such deposit before the Additional Member Board of Revenue. In consideration of such deposit the order dated 16.4.2009 - 2 - passed by the Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, Annexure-1 is set aside with direction to the Additional Member Board of Revenue to grant one last indulgence to the petitioner to prosecute his preemption revision, but it is made clear that if any adjournment is sought by the petitioner from the Additional Member Board of Revenue, the Board should ignore the order and proceed to hear the matter in accordance with law. 4. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)