IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------
CIVIL RESTORATION No. 14 of 2009
A.C.T.O.(AE-II-) JODHPUR
V/S
M/S MAHENDRA SINGH CHOUDHARY
Mr. VK MATHUR, for the appellant / petitioner
Date of Order : 13.4.2009
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.
ORDER
—–
In this matter, the revision stood dismissed
consequent upon the order passed by this Court on 7.9.2007
in presence of learned counsel for the Department.
In para-2 of the restoration application it is
pleaded as under:-
“That the matter was listed before the Hon’ble
court on 7.9.2007 and this Hon’ble Court passed a
preemptory order for filing the requisite along
with the application for condonation of delay for
filing the requisite. This Hon’ble Court was also
pleased to pass the order that if the needful is
done then office was directed to proceeded further
and delay shall be taken as condoned. But if the
needful is not done then the revision petition was
directed to be dismissed without reference to the
Hon’ble Court. Since, the needful was not done in
pursuance of the directions of this Hon’ble court
dated 7.9.2007. The matter was listed before the
learned Deputy Registrar (Judl.), on 4.10.2007 and
the case was dismissed for non compliance of the
order dated 7.9.2007 passed by this Hon’ble Court.
Copies of the orders dated 7.9.2007 and 4.10.2007
are submitted herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-1 &
2 respectively.”However, the other restoration applications
arising in identical circumstances have already been
dismissed by this Court by passing the following order:-
“In this matter, the revision petition
stood dismissed consequent upon the order
passed by this Court on 7.9.2007 in presence
of learned counsel for the Department. It is
significant to note that under Rule 166 the
revision petition was required to be
dismissed on that day itself, and it was only
on the statement of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the requisites along with
application for condonation of delay have
been put in, that the delay was condoned and
notices were ordered to be issued relying
upon the statement of the learned counsel,
and it was by way of abundant caution, that
it was clarified, that if the requistes are
not found to have been put in, as against the
unserved respondents, the petition will
automatically stand dismissed. From the
report of the Registry it transpires that the
statement made before the Court is wrong, and
therefore, the revision petition has been
dismissed as the order sprung into action.In my view, no ground has been made out
to explain as to why such a wrong statement
was made in the Court. Thus, I do not find
any ground to restore the revision petition.
The same is, therefore, dismissed.”
In that view of the matter, for the same reason
this application is also dismissed.
( N P GUPTA ),J.
/praveen/