Judgment : The present revisional application is directed against Order No. 130 dated 23.8.86 passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Malda, in Case No. O.C./43/75. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order the defendant in the connected suit has filed the instant revisional application and at the time of hearing has also filed his Affidavit-of-service showing service of the revisional application on the respondent/opposite parties. There is no appearance on behalf of the said opposite parties. 3. The connected suit is for a permanent injunction against the defendant/petitioner from using water for irrigation and for any other purpose from the tank measuring .71 decimals recorded as Dag No. 1471 in Khatian No. 377, J. L. No. 94 of Mouza FatehpuL P. S. Gajole, District Malda. 4. It appears from the averments made in the revisional application that the Trial Court adjourned the matter on numerous occasions, namely on 6.1.82, 15.1.82, 31.3.82, 20.5.82, 28.6.82, 9.8.82 and 18.9.82 and the plaintiffs did not file any show cause petition. At last the suit was taken up for hearing and for non-appearance, the same was dismissed by the learned Munsif on 29.11.82. 5. From the records of the connected proceeding, it appears that the plaintiff is not diligent in prosecution of his suit and on the contrary, he has been careless and is interested in keeping the suit pending for inordinate period of duration. Against the said order of dismissal of the suit dated 29.11.82 the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the order or dismissal of the suit sometime on 6.6.83. There has been no explanation, however, for the delay in presentation of the said proceeding. Before going into the merits of the instant revisional application, it appears that the remedy sought for by the plaintiff is for setting aside the order of dismissal of a suit for which a specific remedy lies under the provisions of Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of specific alternative remedy being forecast in the Code of Civil Procedure, itself the invocation of the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is uncalled for. In view of specific alternative remedy being forecast in the Code of Civil Procedure, itself the invocation of the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is uncalled for. In the impugned order, the learned Munsif also did not take into account the existing records of the case where inumerable adjournments were obtained and the case was kept pending nor any show cause was offered. There are decisions to the effect that while making appreciation of a case of restoration of a suit or a proceeding, the conduct of the litigant in prosecution of his litigation is required to be looked into in order to test is bona fide. The learned Munsif, admittedly, did not take the same into account nor did he appreciate that because of the recalcitrant conduct of the plaintiff in prosecution of the suit, the same is shelved in the cold storage and the defendant is made to suffer from pendency of the litigation for inordinate duration. For quite a substantial period of time, there is no explanation as to why the plaintiff would not enquire about the fate of the suit and only an oblique reference was made about the negligence and/or lapse on the part of a Mohurer of the concerned lawyer for the plaintiff, It has also not come forwarded as to how far the lawyer of the plaintiff and because of his oversight and/ or negligence, the matter could not be attended to. A Mohurer cannot be given preference to that of a lawyer engaged by the plaintiff who is supplised to be incharge of looking after his case as the learned lawyer is the actual professional agent of the client. Though there is an earlier decision on the point but it is not out of context to make a reference about the celebrated observations of Tekchand. J., in the judgment of Punjab High Court reported in (1) AIR 1962 Punjab P. 450, Inder Singh Deshraf & Others v, H. S, Gian Singh & Others where it has been specifically held that Mohurer's lapses cannot be construed to be an excuse, particularly, for non, appearance on the part of a litigant in a pending proceeding. 6. J., in the judgment of Punjab High Court reported in (1) AIR 1962 Punjab P. 450, Inder Singh Deshraf & Others v, H. S, Gian Singh & Others where it has been specifically held that Mohurer's lapses cannot be construed to be an excuse, particularly, for non, appearance on the part of a litigant in a pending proceeding. 6. There has been, of course, subsequent evolution of law on the point but none theless the law remains same unless reference was made about the concerned lawyer and the responsibility is not attempted to be affixed on the lawyer on an allegation that he has delegated it to his Mohurer for doing the needful. It is also the bounden duty of the lawyer on record to keep his client apprised of the dates of the proceedings and it does not appear as to whether the concerned lawyer was found negligent in conducting his professional duties. 7. The learned Munsif in the impugned order bas proceeded on the basis of a premise that, according to him, it is the duty of the plaintiff to know about fate of the suit but the conclusion sought to be arrived at in the impugned order is contrary to the premise. There is apparently no nexus between the premise and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Munsif nor he has taken adequate note of the materials on record of the connected proceeding. The learned Munsif appears to have misdirected himself in exercise of his jurisdiction by prolonging longevity of litigation for indefinite duration and for the ends of justice this Court feels that such type of pendency and proliferation of formal litigation should not be encouraged. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction for the ends of justice. The revisional application thus succeeds and it is allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.