A dismissal for want of prosecution must be justified; failure to appear does not negate the right to a fair trial if the applicant has taken steps to pursue the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this revision application, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 10.02.2018 in Inquiry Case No. 100086 of 2007 passed by the 12^th Additional Chief Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat whereby the complaint filed by the applicant came to be disposed of for want of prosecution.

2. The brief fact of the case are that the purpose of filing the present revision application is that the applicant had filed a complaint under Sections 323, 504, 506 (2), 114 etc., before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat around 27.07.2007 against the respondents. It is the case of the applicant that the matter was on board for a considerable period of time. It is further the case of the applicant vide notice dated 31.01.2018, the applicant was intimated that the matter is fixed for hearing on 16.02.2018.

2.2 However, on 16.02.2018 the learned advocate on behalf of the applicant requested for time to file Vakalatnama. Thereafter on 16.02.2018, when the learned advocate for the applicant attended the Court for filing the Vakalatnama, it was learnt that the matter was posted in Lok Adalat on 10.02.2018 and the same came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. In view of this factual scenario, the present application is preferred with the prayer as stated above.

3. Heard Mr. Nirad Buch, learned advocate appearing for the applicant and Utpal Panchal, learned advocate appearing for the respondents.

4. Having heard both the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having perused the material on record, more particularly the rojkam of Inquiry Case No. 100086 of 2007 it appears that on 31.01.2018 notice was issued to the parties making it returnable on 16.02.2018. However, from 16.02.2018 the matter was preponed to 08.02.2018. It further transpired that on 08.02.2018 again notice was issued and thereafter the matter was listed in Lok Adalat after two days i.e. on 10.02.2018, wherein the impugned order came to be passed.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no infirmity can be attributed to the present application for conducting the matter. Thus, it is clear that the notice was issued on 31.01.2018 to the parties making it returnable on 16.02.2018, which fact is not controverted by Mr. Utpal Panchal, learned advocate for the respondents.

6. For the aforesaid, the present application is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.02.2018 passed in Inquiry Case No. 100086 of 2007 by the learned 12^th Additional Chief Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat is quashed and set aside. The Inquiry Case No. 100086 of 2007 is hereby restored. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.