RABI SHANKER SEN GUPTA Vs. ITDC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These applications have been filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 24.7.2002, by which the writ petition was dismissed as none appeared for the petitioner. It may be noted that subsequently, in January 2004, the petitioner filed two applications being CM Nos.1120/2004 and 1121/2004, seeking restoration of the writ petition and for condonation of delay. As none appeared on his behalf to prosecute the aforesaid applications, the same were dismissed for non-prosecution. The present applications have been filed by the petitioner seeking the same relief.

(2.) It is stated in the application that the petitioner is a quasi literate person and had entrusted his case to his Advocate, and the said Advocate is to be blamed for not taking any steps for restoration of the petition. It is further stated that the petitioner was continuously interacting with his Advocate since the year 2001, and the Advocate kept assuring him that his case was pending and was being adjourned from time to time. Thus, the petitioner was under the bona fide belief that his case was being taken care of and he did not make any independent enquiry with regard to the case.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was informed by his previous Advocate in the end of the year 2003 that the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and after coming to know of the same, the applications for restoration of the petition and condonation of delay were filed, while engaging a new Advocate in January, 2004 As noted above, the aforesaid applications were dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.1.2004 It is stated that the petitioner was unaware of the fact that an order of dismissal of the aforesaid applications was passed by this Court on 30.1.2004, as his counsel did not inform him and instead, told him that the case was listed for hearing on 23.4.2007, but as the petitioner doubted the progress of the case, he engaged the present Advocate, who inspected the court file and filed these applications on 27.7.2007. It is stated that the petitioner has been diligently prosecuting his case and cannot be held responsible for dismissal of the applications for non-prosecution.