ABID ALI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

Restoration application No. 248 of 2018 has been filed with a delay of 1 month 4 days.Â

It is the ground taken in the delay condonation application and restoration application that the writ petition was fixed for hearing on 04.01.2018, but

the case could not be attended by the counsel for the petitioner, because counsel for the petitioner was busy in Court No. 3 with regard to writ petition

No. 585 of 2017 “Dr. Gyan Prakash Rastogi and another vs. SSP, U.S. Nagar and other and also with regard to C482 No. 1746 of 2017†Smt.

Sheela Devi vs State and othersâ€​. As a result of which when the case was called out, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.Â

It is further contended that the limitation to file the restoration application was upto 03.02.2018, but since the petitioner could not come to Nainital

from Dehradun, in time, therefore, the restoration application could not be drafted and filed in time. Therefore, there is no deliberate delay on the part

of the petitioner in filing the restoration application. The paragraph nos. 1 to 5 of the application has been verified in personal knowledge of Abid Ali-

petitioner. So it appears that if I go with the averments made in the delay condonation application on the date fixed i.e. 04.01.2018, the petitioner was

present in the Court, Therefore, the ground taken that he could not come from Dehradun to Nainital to file restoration application on time, is false

The same ground has taken in the delay condonation application, which are reproduced in the restoration application, and no new ground has taken

in the recall application. The petitioner has filed the affidavit on false ground in filing the applications for delay condonation as well as restoration

application. Nowadays, the practicing of filing the false affidavit in Court proceedings is rapidity increasing.Â

Since the counsel for the petitioner did not appear on date fix and fail to protect the interest of the petitioner on account of strike, thus instead of

filing the application for restoration, the petitioner ought to take action against the counsel, who did not appear before this Court, rather the petitioner

has filed the recall application, drafted by the same lawyer on false grounds. 6. Since the practice of filing the false affidavit is increasing rapidity,

therefore, to save majesty of the Court, this practice should be stopped immediately.  Â

On 04.01.2018, due to Resolution of Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association, the Advocates were on strike to boycott the Court. Therefore,

counsel had not appeared on the date fixed, whereas in the affidavit it has been stated that the counsel was busy in another court, therefore, he could

not appear before this Court. In the affidavit, the petitioner has made false averments.Â

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harish Uppal vs. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45 has held that the advocates have no right to go on strike. The

Courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike. On the contrary, it is the duty of all Courts to go on with matters on

their boards even in the absence of lawyers. In other words, Court must not be privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. It was held that if a lawyer,

holding a vakaltnama of a client, abstains from attending Court due to a strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay costs which shall be in addition

to damages which he might have to pay his client for loss suffered by him. The petitioner has not taken any steps gains his lawyer for his fault as the

lawyer did not appear before this Court, rather on advice of the same lawyer he has filed the recall application on false ground, which is not

tenable. Â

In the present case, due to boycott of the Court by Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association, the counsel for the petitioner did not appear before the

Court and put interest of his client in jeopardy. Now, after dismissal of writ petition, he has filed restoration application with false averments and is

trying to mislead the Court. No sufficient reason has been shown to recall the order dated 04.01.2018, rather false statement has been made to recall

the order dated 04.01.2018. Sufficient reason is sine qua non for recalling the order and to restore the case to its original number, contrary to it false

ground has been taken, which is disentitled the petitioner for the relief claimed. In such circumstances, the delay condonation application as well as

restoration application are liable to be dismissed.Â

Delay condonation application as well as restoration applications are accordingly, dismissed.Â

No order as to cost.Â