DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. ITS EMPLOYEES B M AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises against the order dated 7.7.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the restoration of the petition has been declined. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides.

(2.) IT appears that it is an admitted position that the order was passed by the learned Single Judge in the main petition on 17.1.2009, directing the appellant to produce certain record. As per the appellant, the attempt was made, but due to inadvertence it was not produced well in time and it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that by inserting amendment dated 23.4.2010 in the application for restoration i.e. Misc. Civil Application No.2976 of 2009, the said fact was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, but the said aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. In our view, the learned Single Judge was more guided by the inaction from 17.1.2009 to 9.9.2009. One of the pertinent aspect is that in a matter of such default, it is not that the Court has no power to dismiss the matter, but at the same time, the matter could have been considered by taking lenient view by imposition of suitable cost, so as to see that such actions are not repeated. The aforesaid is coupled with the circumstance that on behalf of the respondent, nobody was appearing in the matter and, therefore, the delay, of course, caused inconvenience to the Court, but no adverse effect to the opposite side.