Vilas Krishna Sankpal vs Senior Vice President,Menon and Menon Ltd.

K.K. Tated, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for parties. This application is preferred by the original petitioner-complainant for restoration of Writ Petition No. 3765 of 2011, which was dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 8.10.2012.

The learned Counsel Mr. Adagule appearing on behalf of applicant submits that the writ petition was listed for admission before the Hon''ble Justice Smt. R.P. Soundurbaldota on 8.10.2012, but since the learned Advocate appearing for original petitioner could not remain present, as he was held up in part heard matter before the Division Bench. The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Counsel for the applicant further submits that the Advocate on record on same day mentioned the matter for restoration, but as Advocate for the applicant was not present, the Court directed to take necessary steps to restore the matter. On this submission, the learned Counsel for the applicant states that the order dated 8.10.2012 be recalled and writ petition No. 3765 of 2011 be restored on file.

On the other hand, learned Counsel Mr. Nevagi, appearing on behalf of respondent vehemently opposed the present civil application. He has filed affidavit in reply dated 14.2.2014. The learned Counsel for the respondent states that the entire approach of the applicant in the present writ petition was casual and the petition was not seriously contested. He submits that earlier also advocate for the petitioner remained absent on 15.2.2012, 2.5.2012 and 11.7.2012, when the matter called out for admission. He further submits that when the matter was on board before this Court (Coram: Anoop V. Mohta, J.) on 26.7.2012, at that time also, no one appeared on behalf of petitioner. Hence, on that day, the Court dismissed the matter. But, immediately on the same day, Advocate for applicant mentioned the matter and requested for restoration. The same was granted and the matter was adjourned to 6.9.2012. When, again the matter appeared for admission on 8.10.2012, no one appeared on behalf of the applicant. Considering the earlier conduct of the applicant, this Court passed the impugned order dated 8.10.2012 and dismissed the petition for want of prosecution. He submits that this itself shows that the petitioner is not interested in the present matter. He further submits that the present application is not duly affirmed by the applicant. There is no averment in the civil application, why the Advocate for the applicant was not remained present before this Court on 15.2.2012, 2.5.2012 and 11.7.2012. These facts are suppressed by the applicant in the present civil application. Therefore, on the ground of suppression, the present civil application is liable to be dismissed. I heard both the sides at length. Admittedly, in the present petition, earlier on 15.2.2012, 2.5.2012 and 11.7.2012, no one appeared on behalf of applicant. These facts are not disclosed by the applicant in the present application. Even, the present application is not duly affirmed by the applicant. There is no prayer for dispensing of affidavit in support of application. As the applicant failed to show sufficient cause and suppressed the earlier orders passed by this Court, I do not find any substance in the present civil application. Hence, the same is dismissed.