RAM CHANDER Vs. H.P.STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions have been consolidated and disposed of by a common order preferred against the order of the Divisional Commissioner passed on an application under Order 41 Rule 19 moved in each of the cases praying for restoration of the appeals preferred by each of the petitioners which were dismissed in default on 17.11.2005.

(2.) THE primary reason urged for restoration in the application(s) was that the dismissal was the result of non -appearance of counsel of the applicant(s) and no fault could be attributed to him/them. The order sheet shows that the case was called out thrice on 17.11.2005 but nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant(s) before the Divisional Commissioner. The application for restoration was accompanied by another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act where again the primary reason for non -appearance was that the delay in moving application under Order 41 Rule 19 was that the counsel had not communicated with the petitioner(s).

(3.) IT is not clear as to from where this quotation has been taken, whether from a judgment or binding precedent of this Court or from the bare provisions of the Code.