M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of opposite parties. Inspite of service of notice the opposite parties have not appeared, hence this Civil Revision Application is disposed of.
(2.) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 7.8. 2002 passed by the Sub Judge IXth, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Case No. 3 of 1999 whereby he has rejected the Miscellaneous Case No. 3 of 1999 and refused to restore the Execution Case No. 2 of 1984. It appears that the suit filed by the plaintiff -petitioner for eviction of the defendant was ultimately decreed ex parte. The decree was put in execution vide Execution Case No. 2 of 1984 which remained pending for so many years and during that period the file was transferred from one Court to another Court. Ultimately the case was dismissed on 21.9.1999 for non - prosecution. The petitioner decree holder filed an application under Order IX, Rule 4, CPC for restoration of the said Execution Case on the ground, inter alia, that neither the Advocate, nor the Advocate -Clerk were aware about the frequent transfer of the case from one Court to another Court and further that because of bonafide mistake, the case was left from the diary of the Lawyer's clerk.
(3.) IT appears that in support of his case, the petitioner -decree holder examined witnesses. The Court below refused to restore the case mainly on the ground that the petitioner was careless and the cause shown is unsatisfactory.;