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. In application dated 24.03.2014, the petitioner narrated the previous incidents whereunder, he had
