RAJ KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. BILASPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition has been filed for restoration of W.P. No.931/2001, which was dismissed in default vide order dated 14.11.2007.

(2.) Shri Ravindra Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant was diligent and was interested in prosecuting the case. He submits further that his Counsel had assured him of taking care of his case and as such he is not required to contact on the date of hearing and that he will be kept informed. However, he did not inform when it was dismissed in default on 14.11.2007 and submits further that all of a sudden, on 31.10.2013, the Applicant suffers from a disease known as Acute Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyradiculopathy (Guillaine Barre Syndrome) and recurrent pneumonia with bronchiectasis in left lower lobe and has remained in ICU for about five months at Apollo Hospital in Coma. He submits further that even after his discharge, the Applicant was not able to perform his daily routine work and was completely bed ridden. According to Shri Agrawal, on 03.09.2018, an advertisement was published in "Dainik Bhaskar", daily newspaper of Bilaspur edition by Bilaspur Merchant Association in which, vote of thanks has been given in lieu of handing over the possession of plots in the Vyapar Vihar Yojna and as the Applicant was also a candidate for allotment of the same scheme, therefore, upon knowing the said publication, he enquired from his Counsel and other sources about the status of his said Writ Petition, then only, he came to know that his Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution on 14.11.2007. Shri Agrawal, therefore, submits that under such circumstances, while applying liberal view, the said Petition as dismissed on 14.11.2007 be restored to its original number in order to provide the substantial justice to the parties.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Abhijeet Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondent, while opposing the said prayer, submits that sufficient cause has not been explained for almost the delay of more than 10 years in filing this M.C.C for restoration of the said Writ Petition. He submits further that although the Applicant was suffering from a critical condition as stated by him, however, sufficient cause has not been shown from the date when the Writ Petition was dismissed till the Applicant has suffered from the said disease. As such, the application as filed for restoration of the said Writ Petition, which apparently suffers from its inordinate delay, deserves to be dismissed. In support, he placed his reliance upon the principles laid down in the matter of Puran Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 205, Balwant Singh (dead) vs. Jagdish Singh and Others reported in (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 685 and also in the matter of Smt Jyoti vs. General Manager passed in M.C.C No.591/2016 by the co-ordiante Bench of this Court.