Court No. 40 Case : WRIT B No. 3135 of 2006 Petitioner : Bhoore Respondent : Dy. Director Of Consolidation & Others Petitioner Counsel : Rameshwar Nath,Ashish Jaiswal Respondent Counsel : C.S.C.,H.L. Pandey Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.
Order on
Civil Misc. (Restoration) Application No. 144076 of 2010
Counter Affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 6 in
reply to the aforementioned Restoration Application has been
filed today.
Shri Randhir Jain, holding brief for Shri Rameshwar
Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
petitioner does not propose to file any Rejoinder Affidavit.
Therefore, the aforementioned Restoration Application is
being takenup for consideration.
By the Order dated 21.4.2010, the Writ Petition was
dismissed for want of prosecution.
It was further observed that Interim Order, if any,
stood vacated.
The aforementioned Restoration Application has been
filed on 12.5.2010, and the same is thus within time.
It is, interalia, prayed in the aforementioned
Restoration Application that the said Order dated 21.4.2010
be recalled, and the Writ Petition be restored to its
original number.
The aforementioned Restoration Application is supported
by an Affidavit, sworn by Bhoore (petitioner). Paragraphs no.
3 and 5 of the said affidavit filed in support of the
Restoration Application are quoted below:
“3. That it appears the case was listed in the
daily cause list on 21.4.2010 in court no. 40
before the Hon’ble S.P. Mehrotra, J. but the same
could not be marked by the clerk of the
petitioner’s counsel as such the counsel could not
appear before the Hon’ble Court on 21.4.2010 and
the Hon’ble Court was pleased to dismissed the
writ petition for want of prosecution.”
“5. That it appears the case was listed in the
daily cause list as peremptorily due to illness
slip sent by the counsel for the petitioner on
5.4.2010. It is stated that the counsel for the
petitioner Shri Rameshwar Nath who has to argue
the present case remained ill, in such situation
2he has to sent illness slip therefore it cannot be
said that the petitioner has adopted delaying
tactics to linger on the present writ petition.”
The abovequoted paragraphs no. 3 and 5 of the
aforesaid Affidavit, have been replied to in paragraphs no. 4
and 6 of the Counter Affidavit filed today on behalf of the
respondent no.6.
Paragraphs no. 4 and 6 of the said Counter Affidavit are
reproduced below:
“4. That the contents of paragraph nos. 2 and
3 of affidavit need no reply, being matter of
records.
6.That the contents of paragraph no. 5 of the
affidavit, need no reply.”
It will thus be noticed that the averments made in
paragraphs no. 3 and 5 of the aforesaid Affidavit filed in
support of the aforementioned Restoration Application, have
not been denied in paragraphs no. 4 and 6 of the Counter
Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.6.
Having regard to the averments made in the
aforementioned Restoration Application and its supporting
Affidavit, particularly in Paragraphs 3 and 5 of the said
Affidavit, which have not been denied in the Counter
Affidavit, and keeping in view the facts stated above, I am
satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out for non
appearance on behalf of the petitioners on 21.4.2010 when the
case was takenup before the Court, and was dismissed for
want of prosecution.
In view of the above, the aforementioned Restoration
Application deserves to be allowed, and the same is
accordingly allowed.
The Writ Petition is restored to its original number.
The Statusquo Order, as contained in the Order dated
28.5.2010, will continue to remain in operation till the next
date of listing.
The Writ Petition will now be listed before the
appropriate Bench. It will not be treated as tiedup or part
heard with me.
Dt. 9.7.2010
Ajeet.