SHANKARI NASKAR Vs. KOLKATA PORT TRUST AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition was filed in the year 2014 and was dismissed for default on 20th January, 2015. The matter was subsequently restored by an order dated 19th June, 2015. Consequently, the writ petition appeared before this Court on 16th July, 2015. None appeared in support of the writ petition on that day even at the time of second call. This Court, while taking note of the fact that the writ petition was earlier dismissed for default and subsequently restored, dismissed the writ petition for the second time, while observing as follows:

(2.) After two and a half months from the date of second dismissal of the writ petition, an application, being CAN 10368 of 2015, was filed by the applicant/writ petitioner praying for recalling of the order dated 16th July, 2015, and for restoration of the writ petition. After one and a half month therefrom, another application, being CAN 11231 of 2015 was filed praying for condonation of delay in filing of the restoration application, being CAN 10368 of 2015, beyond the period of thirty days from date of the order of second dismissal, i.e., 16th July, 2015.

(3.) It is quite evident from the records that the writ petitioner was not at all diligent while conducting her case. Once her writ petition was dismissed for default on 20th January, 2015, and subsequently restored by an order dated 19th June, 2015, the writ petition was required to be pursued vigorously and prosecuted with due diligence and in right earnest. A lis cannot be successively brought back to life merely because a litigant has a right to file a recalling application seeking restoration of his/her lis after each dismissal. This will result in a situation where a litigant, having carriage of proceedings, is allowed to keep his/her lis pending indefinitely before a Court of law thereby causing immense prejudice to the other side who is invariably kept on tenterhooks for an indefinite period of time. It will also result in a situation simply unheard of and unacceptable in a modern justice system, i.e., a lis pending in perpetuity. Successive applications for recalling, emanating from each order of dismissal in respect of a single lis and consequently having the said lis restored to its original file and number each and every time is an unacceptable proposition, which, if indulged by a Court, will encourage a litigant to adopt such tactics only in order to keep his/her lis pending for an indefinite period of time. The closure of a lis, not prosecuted with due diligence or in right earnest by a litigant, therefore, is inevitably warranted, especially when it is evident from record that a litigant is having his/her lis restored successively, consequent upon each order of dismissal, by having the same recalled, each and every time.