AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prasanna B. Varale, CJ
By the order dated 06.09.2022, the writ appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. I.A.No.2/2023 is filed to recall the order dated 06.09.2022 and I.A.No.1/2023 is filed seeking condonaton of delay in filing the recalling application.
For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, the delay in filing the recalling application is condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2023 is allowed.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants –Bank invited our attention to paragraphs 4 to 7 of the affidavit accompanying the application and submitted that the absence of the counsel on 06.09.2022 was unintentional and for bona fide reasons. Accepting his submissions, the order dated 06.09.2022 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its file. Accordingly, I.A.No.2/2023 is allowed.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing.
On perusal of the orders dated 15.12.2021 and 28.01.2022 which are impugned in the writ appeal, we do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the said orders.
At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel submits that W.P.No.8591/2021 is listed before the learned Single Judge tomorrow (21.04.2023) itself for hearing. He submits that though the Bank had filed statement of objections but, inadvertently, the same was not placed before the learned Single Judge. He further submits that a separate memo is also filed along with certain documents on which the Bank places reliance in support of its contentions.
In view of the above facts, it can safely be said that the learned Single Judge would certainly consider the submissions and counter submissions of the parties and decide the petition on merits. As such, it is not necessary for us to record any observation on merits of the case.
With these observations, the writ appeal is disposed of.