Rama Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 758 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19509 of 2020
                               Arising out of
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44800 of 2015
      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2013 Thana- GHOGHARDIHA District- Madhubani
     ======================================================

1. Rama Yadav, male, aged about 35 years, Son of Chhedi Yadav

2. Lakshman Yadav, male, aged about 35 years, Son of Chhedi Yadav Both are resident of Village-Tengraha, P.S-Bheja, District-Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Navnit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 08-02-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Navnit Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (APP) for the State.

3. The present application has been filed seeking recall

of order dated 08.03.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44800 of

2015.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the petitioners were not aware of the case being dismissed as

they were not informed by their lawyer.

5. On a query of the Court as to why the petitioners

waited for three years without even checking up from their

learned lawyer with regard to the status of the case, which Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19509 of 2020 dt.08-02-2021

shows that they were also not bothered about the case or had no

desire to pursue the matter and only after much delay they have

again tried to revive the case, learned counsel could not give any

satisfactory explanation.

6. The Court would indicate that though learned

counsel for the parties are required to keep the person who has

filed the case informed, but it is equally incumbent upon the

parties to keep track of the status of their litigation. There being

no desire on the part of the petitioners, as is reflected in the

present case to seek information about the status of their case

from learned counsel is enough indication of there being laches

on the part of the petitioners also, more so, as for over three

years the petitioners claiming ignorance of the order is difficult

to accept and if the same is correct, then also, there is laches on

the part of the petitioners for not having enquired about the

status of their cases for so long.

7. For reasons aforesaid, the Court does not feel

persuaded to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the application

stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T