GH. MOHAMMAD SHERI Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant writ petitioner has filed an application seeking the indulgence of this Court in condoning the delay of one year and 200 days in filing the restoration petition, against the order dated 23-08-2012 of this Court, passed in OWP 720/2012, inter alia, on the grounds that the delay was caused due to the negligence of the counsel representing the applicant writ petitioner. It is pleaded in the application that the applicant writ petitioner was all along in touch with his counsel, enquiring about his case, assured him that his case has been admitted to hearing and is pending disposal. The applicant writ petitioner had no reason to disbelieve his counsel. The writ petitioner has further stated that when he came to the Court once to know about the fate of his case, he was shocked to hear that the same has since been dismissed by the Court. The writ petitioner has proceeded to state that without wasting any further time, he approached his counsel to submit the application for the condonation of delay for the restoration of the writ petition. Immediately after receiving the certified copy of the order of dismissal of the writ petition, he filed an application for the condonation of delay. The writ petitioner proceeded to state that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate and if the application is not allowed and the writ petition is not restored to its original number, the house of the petitioner, which is built on the suit property, is likely to be demolished, which may cause irreparable loss to the petitioner and ruin him for no fault of his. The application is buttressed with an affidavit.

(2.) In the objections filed by respondent No.9, it is pleaded that the applicant has not given sufficient and cogent reason for filing the application after a huge and prolonged delay. She has further stated that there is a delay of almost two years in filing the application and the explanation given is not convincing to seek the indulgence of the Court. Even the name of the counsel, who represented the petitioner in the writ petition, has not been stated anywhere in the application seeking condonation of delay. The respondent has further submitted that as a matter of fact, the applicant writ petitioner had full knowledge of the dismissal of the petition but he remained silent on purpose. It is further contended in the objections that no reason, whatsoever, is given for the non appearance of the petitioner or his learned counsel on 23-08-2012 the date when the writ petition was dismissed in default. Since the applicant has failed to satisfy the Court for condoning the delay, therefore, the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) Heard and considered.