KUMARI RENU CHAUHAN Vs. GOVERNMENT COLLEGE AJMER SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This special appeal has been filed against the order dated 8. 01. 1993 by which the restoration application of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that sufficient cause for absence on the date of dismissal of the writ petition was not made out.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that a writ petition was filed by the present appellant for seeking admission to LL. B. 1st year course in Government College, Ajmer. On this writ petition an order was passed on 21. 11. 1989 that provisional admission be given to her in LL. B. 1st year provided there remains vacancy available for admission after giving admission to the aspirants candidates who possess 45% marks and who have applied for admission. THEreafter, the writ petition remained pending and was adjourned from time to time on the request of the counsel for the parties. On 6. 05. 1992 no one was present for the counsel for the petitioner and Shri D. K. Soral, Counsel for the respondent No. 3 was present and the writ petition was dismissed in default arid it was also made clear that the interim order dated 21. 11. 1989 shall stand vacated by the dismissal of the) writ petition.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. At the time of dealing with an application for restoration of a petition dismissed in default on the ground of absence of the counsel or the parties, this Court has to look into the question wh6ther sufficient ground for non-appearance by the party or his counsel has been made out or not. At this stage, it is not open to the Court to go into the merits of the case. It may be stated that after accepting the restoration application, the Court can proceed to decide the main writ petition or case whatsoever it is, but for purposes of deciding the restoration application, the only question to be seen is whether the party or his counsel was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the case when it was called. In the present case, the explanation given by Shri B. L. Samdariya for not being able to appear on 6. 05. 1992 has been accepted. When Shri B. L. Samdariya had made arrangements with Shri R. N. Mather to appear in the Court and seek adjournment then the question of appearing of Mrs. Maya Bansal in the Court does not arise for consideration. It is for Mr. B. L. Samdariya to see whether he sends Mrs. Bansal in the case or Mr. Mather in the case and being satisfied with the arrangements he depended on Mr. Mather. However, Mr. Mather did not appear in the case which led to dismissal of the writ petition. He has given the reason that he could not appear as he was busy in another Court and thus, it can be said that he has been negligent for not conveying the instructions of Shri Samdariya to the Court but then for his negligence the party cannot be punished. The negligence of Mr. Mather cannot come in the way of the appellant because her counsel was Shri Samdariya and for his absence sufficient cause has been shown in the application as well as in the affidavit.