AZIZ PLASTIC INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for recalling the order dated 22nd October, 2009 passed by this Court under which the writ petition has been dismissed as infructuous and the interim order has been vacated.

(2.) On 10th March, 2011 after about a period of 17 months from the date of passing the order, petitioners have filed this application for recalling the order dated 22nd October, 2009 alongwith application for condoning the delay taking an usual defence that in the month of November, 2009 all of a sudden, the petitioner No. 2, deponent herein had to go to Mumbai for his treatment and remained there for a period of one year and in February, 2011 when he came back to Allahabad and in the fourth week of February, 2011 he wanted to get information from the clerk of the concerned Counsel and came to know that the writ petition was already dismissed as infructuous, therefore, the delay may be condoned and earlier order may be recalled and the writ petition be restored in its file.

(3.) Firstly, according to us, petitioner No, 1 is a partnership firm and the petitioner No.2 is a partner of the said firm. It is well settled by now that a company, firm or organisation, which are backed by battery of lawyers to represent their case before the Court of law cannot be equated with rustic villager to get some sort of relaxation for condoning the delay and/or recalling or restoration of the matter. Ratio of the judgment to that extent in Hanuman Industries India Pvt. Ltd. v. Official Liquidator U.P. and another,2007 9 ADJ 72 is followed herein. Therefore, when no explanation is there how the Advocates were prevented from appearing in the Court on that very date and time when the matter was called out or immediately thereafter, is a major question for condonation of delay and recalling or restoration of the order. But we do not find any explanation in this regard. The matter is very old one and such type of matters should not be kept pending unnecessarily to increase the number of litgations unless, of course, prudent cause is available. In the instant case, respondents have vehemently opposed restoration application and condonation application by filing the counter-affidavit. The important paragraphs of counter-affidavit are quoted hereunder: