ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 08.08.2014 in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2014, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner is substituted plaintiff in Succession Case No. 1 of 1997. Initially, the suit was instituted in the Court at Palamau. Thereafter, pursuant to order passed in W.P.(C) No. 7498 of 2006 after creation of new Judgeship at Garhwa, the case was transferred to the Court of Garhwa. After the transfer, the petitioner's counsel made an application and he was shown the record of the case on 08.01.2014. The case was fixed for hearing on 26.02.2014 however, no one turned up on behalf of the plaintiff and accordingly, the suit was dismissed under Order IX Rule 3 C.P.C. The petitioner filed an application dated 24.03.2014 for restoration of the suit however, the said application has been dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2014. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Mr. Anurag Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner for nonappearance on 26.02.2014 still, the trial court dismissed application dated 24.03.2014 under Order IX Rule 4 C.P.C. for restoration of the suit. Erroneously holding that the court does not see any compelling circumstance which prevented the applicant from appearing in the suit on 26.02.2014, the said application has been dismissed. It is further submitted that the pleadings in the Succession Case No. 1 of 1997 was completed and the parties had led their evidence. The case was fixed for final arguments and therefore, one opportunity should have been given to the plaintiff/applicant to prosecute Succession Case No. 1 of 1997. 4. Vide order dated 19.08.2015, notice was issued to the respondents. The petitioner was permitted to serve dasti notices upon the respondents. The petitioner filed supplementary affidavit dated 16.09.2015 stating that the petitioner personally approached the respondents and brother of respondent no. 1 namely, Gulam Rabbani and the maternal uncle of respondent no. 2 namely, Afagani Nisha received the dasti summons on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively. On behalf of respondent no. 4 her husband received the dasti summons and the respondent nos. 5 and 6 have received dasti notices themselves. However, respondent nos. 3, 7 and 8 have refused to accept the dasti summons. 2 namely, Afagani Nisha received the dasti summons on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively. On behalf of respondent no. 4 her husband received the dasti summons and the respondent nos. 5 and 6 have received dasti notices themselves. However, respondent nos. 3, 7 and 8 have refused to accept the dasti summons. The matter was posted on 17.09.2015 however, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents and the matter was fixed for hearing today. Today also, no one appears on behalf of the respondents. In view of the supplementary affidavit dated 16.09.2015 filed by the petitioner, notices upon the respondents is deemed to have been validly served. 5. From the writ petition it appears that one Abdul Sakoor instituted Succession Case No. 1 of 1997 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Garhwa which was finally transferred in the Court of District Judge, Palamau. In the meantime, the original plaintiff died and his legal heirs were substituted in his place. The substituted plaintiffs filed an application for transfer of the case record to the Court at Garhwa because subsequently, the new Judgeship of Garhwa was created however, the said application was dismissed against which the petitioner came before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7498 of 2006. The writ petition was allowed and the record of Succession Case No. 1 of 1997 was transferred to the Court of District Judge, Garhwa. The petitioner thereafter engaged the counsel who inspected the record on 08.01.2014. The next date of hearing of the Succession Case No. 1 of 1997 was fixed on 26.02.2014 however, no one appeared on the said date and the Succession Case was dismissed under Order IX Rule 3 C.P.C. Order dated 26.02.2014 merely records that the applicant has lost his interest in prosecuting the case however, the said order does not disclose the basis for recording such a finding by the court. It is not stated in order dated 26.02.2014 that on previous several occasions also, the applicant/petitioner herein did not appear in the case rather, order dated 26.02.2014 records that on 08.01.2014, the counsel for the applicant had perused the case record. The conduct of the applicant which is reflected through the counsel representing him who inspected the record on 08.01.2014 clearly discloses that the applicant was diligently prosecuting the case. The conduct of the applicant which is reflected through the counsel representing him who inspected the record on 08.01.2014 clearly discloses that the applicant was diligently prosecuting the case. In application dated 24.03.2014, the petitioner narrated the previous incidents whereunder, he had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 7498 of 2006 challenging the order declining transfer of the case from the District Court, Palamau to the Court of District Judge, Garhwa. The above facts, in my opinion, clearly would disclose that the petitioner was not negligent in prosecuting the case. Moreover, after the parties led their evidence and the case was fixed for final hearing, the trial court should not have dismissed the suit under Order IX Rule 3 C.P.C. Order dated 08.08.2014 suffers from serious infirmity and accordingly, it is setaside. 6. The writ petition stands allowed. The Succession Case No. 1 of 1997 is restored to its original file however, on payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the District Legal Services Authority, Garhwa. The trial court is directed to proceed in the matter after issuing fresh notices to the parties, in accordance with law.