AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 266 wordsBarin Ghosh, C.J. & U.C. Dhyani, J.—Delay Condonation Application No. 11912 of 2011
Restoration Application 847 of 2011
None appeared on behalf of the appellant on 14th July, 2011 and, accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for nonprosecution.
A restoration application has been filed, where it has been stated that clerk of the learned counsel engaged by the appellant did not mark the matter in the list and, accordingly, learned counsel engaged by the appellant could not appear when the matter was taken up for consideration.
That appears to be no ground for restoration. There is some delay in filing the restoration application and, accordingly, an application for condonation of delay in preferring the restoration has been filed, where also the reason for delay was that the counsel for the appellant was not aware that the appeal has been listed in the list. The same too is no ground for restoration.
The applications are, accordingly, liable to be dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that for laches or negligence on the part of the counsel, the litigant should not suffer, we are, reluctantly, allowing the applications, provided the counsel, from his own, deposit a cost of ` 5,00/ with the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority within 15 days from today. In default, the applications shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
The Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority is directed to utilize the sum for the mediation purpose.
In the event such cost is deposited and receipt thereof is furnished to the Registry, Registry shall list the matter for admission in the list.