NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. TUSHAR KANTI SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While hearing the application for restoration together with an application for condonation of delay in filing such application a point was taken by Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate for the opposite party in the revisional application that the delay in filing the application for restoration has not been properly explained and that, he wishes to file counter affidavit dealing with the plea set up in the application for condonation of delay. I have perused the application for restoration and also for condonation of delay. It appears to me that the fact that the revisional application did not appear in the monthly list of September, 2010, as directed earlier, but appeared in the monthly list of November, 2010, without any prayer for enlistment thereof by the learned advocate for the applicants resulted in his failing to notice such enlistment and consequently, the revisional application was dismissed for default. Further, belated filing of the restoration application was caused due to ignorance of the learned advocate for the petitioners that the revisional application was dismissed on 01.12.2010.

(2.) In my view, a litigant ought not to suffer for laches or negligence or mistake of his learned advocate. Keeping the same in mind, I have no hesitation to hold that cause shown for not filing the restoration application within time is sufficient.

(3.) Reasons shown for non appearance before the Court on 01.12.2010 also being sufficient, I recall the said order dated 01.12.2010 and direct that the revisional application shall be restored to its original file and number.