JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 13.1.2011, this writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner made an application for obtaining Succession Certificate. Notice was issued to the public at large calling for their objections. None submitted their objections. On 15.12.2010, petitioner's counsel could not present himself before the Court for bona fide reasons. The application was dismissed in default. The petitioner then filed an application for restoration of the case. By the impugned order, the same was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that restoration application was filed on the very next day of the dismissal of the case in default. The absence of the petitioner was bona fide, thus, case of the petitioner should have been restored to its original number. It is further contended that the respondents were formal party. None appeared on behalf of public despite notice. 4. 1 have considered the submissions made. 5. The application submitted for seeking Succession Certificate was dismissed in default. The application for restoration of the case was moved on the next day itself therefore, the Court should have taken a liberal view. Thus, I am inclined to accept this writ petition without notice as no-one appeared on behalf of the public at large before Court below despite notice and respondent No. 1 is a formal party. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 15.12.2010 and 13.1.2011 passed by the Court below are set aided. The application for restoration is allowed and the application seeking Succession Certificate is restored to its original number.Petition allowed. *******