SHRI DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual court Applicant - Dinesh Kumar has filed the present application for recalling of order dtd. 18/9/2014 passed by this Court, whereby the main writ petition was ordered to be dismissed with liberty to petitioner to make an application for revival if cause of action still survives. Consequently relief for revival of the main petition has also been sought.

(2.) As per learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, the delay in filing the application has occurred on account of the fact that petitioner was earlier represented by Sh. Jaskirat Singh Sidhu, Advocate, who died and therefore, could not contact him, especially when writ petition stood admitted. However, the matter was thereafter being looked after by another counsel with whom he had no contact and as such, the petitioner could not represent or convey instructions to his counsel. It is further submitted that applicant came to know about the disposal of his writ petition in the last week of April, 2021 and on this, he immediately contacted the present counsel and engaged him. Lastly, it is submitted that since liberty was granted to him to make an application for revival in case cause of action survives, therefore the instant application is very well maintainable.

(3.) On the strength of the aforesaid facts, it has been argued that there is no fault on part of the applicant and therefore the main writ petition be restored, especially in view of the fact that the petitioner stands acquitted in FIR No. 99 of 1997 vide judgment dtd. 8/12/2017 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi, which has been further upheld by Additional District Judge-02, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi, vide judgment dtd. 24/12/2019 and thus, a valid cause of action survives in the instant writ petition.