1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------
CIVIL WRIT No. 2758 of 2008
RAJKUMAR
V/S
CENTRAL ADMI. TRIB.,JODHPUR & ORS
Mr. R BHATNAGAR, for the appellant / petitioner
Date of Order : 1.7.2008
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.
HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J.
ORDER
—–
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused
the impugned order.
By the impugned order, learned Tribunal has
dismissed the restoration application. The O.A. was
dismissed on 5.12.2007 as nobody appeared. The restoration
application is said to have been filed on 15.1.2008
alleging inter-alia that on 5.12.2007 the counsel could not
appear, hence this application was dismissed, and the
counsel appeared after the case was dismissed in default on
5.12.2007 itself, and prayed that since he was busy in the
High Court, and as soon as he got free therefrom, he
appeared before the Tribunal, therefore, the application be
heard on merits, but the learned Tribunal did not recall
the order.
Learned Tribunal has found in para 5 itself to be
2
unable to believe the version of the applicant’s counsel
that after the case was dismissed in limine on 5.12.2007,
on the very day itself, the counsel as soon as he got free
from the High Court, appeared before the Tribunal, but the
Tribunal did not recall the order. It is also even found
that the allegation made by learned counsel is vague, as no
particulars of the case have been given, wherein he was
busy in the High Court. We do not find any error in this
part of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. It
is a different story that had the theory of the counsel
appearing before the Tribunal on 5.12.2007 itself after
dismissal any trace of truth, the minimum that was expected
was that at least the counsel could have filed an
application on that very day, pointing out these
circumstances, as against which, the restoration
application has been filed much after even 30 days. May be
that for filing restoration application, the applicant’s
presence was felt by the counsel to be necessary, but then
in any case, nothing prevented the counsel from filing the
application before the Tribunal on 5.12.2007 itself, which
could have shown some bonafides. Thus, we do not find any
ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The
writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily.
( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J.
/tarun/
