PRITI KARMARKAR Vs. S S BHARASME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for restoration of contempt Petition No. 102 of 2005 dismissed for want of prosecution on 16-8-2005.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, the petition was listed for hearing on 16-8-2005. On 10-8-2005, the car of the petitioner's counsel was stolen and he had to lodge a report with police. The counsel, therefore, could not attend the Court from 10-8-2005 to 16-8-2005, when the petition was dismissed. Therefore, he has sought restoration of the petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner. The reason given for non-appearance on 16-8-2005 is not acceptable, because theft of a car may immobilize a person for a day or two. After the report was lodged, there was no reason why the counsel could not come to the Court and attend to his matters, for which he had accepted briefs from the clients, on the dates fixed. In any case, there was enough time for the counsel to request his colleagues in the Bar to see that the matters in which he was supposed to appear did not go by default. Therefore, on merits, the petitioner does not have good justification for restoration of the petition.