SHYAMLAL TABIYAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. It is strange that a ground is taken that due to over sight requisites have not been put in while a look at the order dt. 25.4.2006 shows that categoric statement was made about requisites along with application for condonation of delay having been put in and relying on the word of learned counsel the order was passed. Making a wrong statement in the Court, and thereby make the Court believe a particular state of affairs to exist itself is a very serious matter. As against which by this restoration application, the petitioner seeks to claim premium for such an act of making misstatement in the Court. In my view, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The restoration application is, therefore, dismissed.