KISHAN KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THESE applications have been moved on behalf of respondent No. 3. There is 53 days delay in filing the review application. Though, the review applicant No. 3 was impleaded, but no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the review applicant/respondent No. 3. Even counsel for the review applicant did not appear when the case was heard finally. Now Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate is appearing for the applicant and intends to argue the case on merits. This cannot be permitted. The case cannot be heard on its merits or reopened, after it is decided on merits, on the ground that the counsel for the applicant was not present on the date when the matter was finally heard on merits. No sufficient grounds have been disclosed for the delay in filing review application. Apart from this, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record.

(3.) BY way of application (CLMA No. 13867/12), the respondent No. 2 is praying for condonation of delay in filing the recall application on the ground that now State Industrial Development Corporation (SIDCUL) has stepped into shoes of U.P. State Textile Corporation Limited and liabilities whatsoever, is upon the SIDCUL, therefore the order dated 5th July, 2012 passed by this Court should be modified accordingly. No sufficient reason has been disclosed for the delay in filing the application.