Patna High Court
Hari Shankar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the dismissed writ petition could not be restored and the petitioner must file a fresh petition.
Summary
Hari Shankar Singh filed a civil writ petition (C.W.J.C. No.10915 of 2015) which was dismissed for default on 09‑09‑2016 because his advocate did not appear. He later applied for restoration of the dismissed petition, claiming he was never informed of the dismissal and that the delay was due to this. The State of Bihar contended that the dismissal occurred in 2016, and more than nine years have elapsed, rendering the petition lapsed; therefore a fresh writ petition should be filed. The Patna High Court accepted the State's submission, finding that the passage of time precludes restoration. Consequently, the restoration application was closed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition for any remaining grievances.
Issues considered
- Can a writ petition dismissed for default be restored after a lapse of several years without prior notice?
Subjects
- writ petition
- restoration
- default dismissal
- lapse of time
- civil writ jurisdiction
- fresh petition
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1865 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10915 of 2015
======================================================
Hari Shankar Singh S/o Late Raj Kishor Singh resident of village- Asani,
Post- Asani, P.S.- Asani, District- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Collector, Gopalganj.
3. The Block Development Officer, (Katteya), Gopalganj.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, AC to GA- 11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 06-02-2026 Heard the learned Advocate for the parties.
2. The present application has been filed seeking
restoration of C.W.J.C. No.10915 of 2015, which stood
dismissed for default on account of non-appearance of the
learned Advocate for the petitioner vide order dated 09.09.2016.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
since at no point of time the fact regarding dismissal of the writ
petition has been communicated and, as such, delay has
occurred.
4. Learned Advocate for the State submits that the
writ petition, bearing C.W.J.C. No.10915 of 2015, came to be
dismissed in the year 2016 and now more than nine years have
Patna High Court MJC No.1865 of 2025(3) dt.06-02-2026
2/2
been lapsed and, as such, the petitioner should file a fresh writ
petition bringing on record all the facts and development, which
has taken place during the interregnum period.
5. This Court finds substance in the submissions of
the learned Advocate for the State.
6. Accordingly, the present restoration application
stands closed with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ
petition for the remaining grievances, which have not been
redressed till date.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
U
Checking your session…