SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. FCI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. M. Nos. 15331/2006 (for restoration) and 15332/2006 (u/s 5 of the Limitation Act)The present applications are filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for recall of the order dated 3. 1. 2006, by which the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, as also for condonation of delay. The aforesaid applications came to be filed on 7. 11. 2006.

(2.) IT is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the writ petition was admitted, vide order dated 25. 7. 1994 and came up for regular hearing in the year 2006. The petitioner's counsel informed the petitioner that, as and when the case would reach for hearing, he would intimate her about the position and hence, the petitioner relied on her counsel to follow up the case in Court. However, as the counsel, who was engaged earlier, did not give a satisfactory reply to the petitioner, she engaged a new counsel on 21. 9. 2006 and requested him to inspect the case file and inform her about the status of the case. The newly engaged counsel inspected the case file on 28. 9. 2006 and applied for a certified copy of the relevant order dated 3. 1. 2006 which was provided on 10. 10. 2006. Counsel for the petitioner states that immediately thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present applications praying inter alia for setting aside the order dated 3. 1. 2006 and for condonation of delay, if any, in filing the application for restoration.

(3.) NO reply has been filed to the present applications till date, though notice was issued on these applications on 12. 12. 2006. Thereafter, innumerable adjournments were sought on behalf of the petitioner for addressing arguments, due to which the present applications have remained pending.