JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1,2,4,5 & 8. Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for respondent No.3. None for respondents Nos. 6 & 7. They are heard. 2. The petitioner is seeking restoration of Writ Petition No. 1727 of 2001 (M/B), which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 16-06-2006. 3. The petitioner had filed this writ petition in the year 1998 for the following reliefs: "(a) to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay Rs. 325 Crore (Rupees three hundred twenty five crore only) as harassment to the petitioner out of which Rs. 7,56,715.00 is principal amount of loan and Rs. 28,52,844.00 is interest calculated upto the date of making the application, forthwith. (b) to issue any other order, direction or writ as in the circumstances of the case which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. (c) to award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner." 4. As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 25-08-2003, the writ petition was dismissed with the following order: "Petitioner and his Advocate absent. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents present. Petition appears to have become in fructuous. Writ Petition is dismissed for default. No order as to costs. Interim order, if any, to stand vacated." 5. The writ petition, however, was restored to its original number on 17-11-2003. 6. The writ petition then was listed for hearing on 28-05-2004. As none appeared for the petitioner, the writ petition again was dismissed for want of prosecution. 7. Taking a liberal view in the matter, the petition was again restored to its original number vide order dated 25-06-2004. 8. As if all this was not enough, the petitioner, again, was not represented by anyone on 06-08-2004, which led to the passing of another order of dismissal of the writ petition for want of prosecution. 9. The writ petition, again, was restored to its original number vide order dated 05-10-2004 in spite of the fact that the writ petition was dismissed earlier on two occasions for want of prosecution. 10. In the above background, the petition in due course was again listed for hearing on 16-06-2006. 9. The writ petition, again, was restored to its original number vide order dated 05-10-2004 in spite of the fact that the writ petition was dismissed earlier on two occasions for want of prosecution. 10. In the above background, the petition in due course was again listed for hearing on 16-06-2006. The petitioner, true to his past colours, again was not represented by anyone on 16-06-2006 and as such, the Court was left with no other option but to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution fourth time. 11. The petitioner, now, has filed a petition (CLMA No. 8745 of 2006) for restoration of the writ petition to its original number. 12. Enough is Enough. No litigant can be allowed to play with the Court in the above fashion. It is not at the sweet will of the litigant to appear before the Court on the date of hearing or remain absent and seek restoration of the matter any number of times when the same is dismissed for want of prosecution. The above growing tendency in the litigants deserves to be nipped in the bud. To make it an eye-opener to the petitioner and the other like minded litigants, we decline to restore the writ petition to its original number. 13. CLMA No. 8745 of 2006, therefore, fails and is, hereby, dismissed.