ASSOCIATED STONE IND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order, passed in SB Civil Restoration Application No. 219/2001, in SB Civil Writ Petition NO. 1366/94 (Defect ). By the order impugned in this appeal, the learned Single Judge, by his order dated 8. 8. 2001, dismissed the restoration application. The writ petition was dismissed in default, on 22. 3. 95. The order of the Court, dated 22. 3. 95, reads as under:- "on account of the strike, the petitioner's counsel is not present. No representative on behalf of the petitioner is even present. "

(2.) IN the restoration application, the ground given for the absence of the counsel on 22. 3. 95, when the matter was called for hearing, is as under:- "that on 22. 3. 95, the Bar Council of Rajasthan gave a call for the strike throughout Rajasthan and in connection with that call, Shri R. S. Mehta and his colleagues remained on strike and could not attend the matter and the same was dismissed for default. "

(3.) IN paragraph 16, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "in all cases where the court is satisfied that the ex parte order (passed due to the absence of the advocate pursuant to any strike call) could be set aside on terms, the court can as well permit the party to realise the costs from the advocate concerned without driving such party to initiate another legal action against the advocate. "