Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2280 (RAJ)

Loomba Ram v. B. O. R.

2008-09-27

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2008
Honble MAHESHWARI, J.—Revenue Suit No. 141/1994 having been dismissed by the Revenue Authorities, ultimately with dismissal of their Second Appeal by the Board of Revenue on 16.04.1999, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed the writ petition, CWP No. 1109/2000, on 07.01.2000. 2. The said writ petition was taken up for consideration on 25.04.2000 and this Court put the counsel for the petitioners to the query on the aspect of delay in filing the writ petition and the matter was adjourned for two weeks. 3. It appears that the writ petition was thereafter taken up on 11.05.2000 and when nobody appeared for the petitioners even in the revised call, this Court, while noticing noncompliance of the earlier order dated 25.04.2000 and non-prosecution, dismissed the said writ petition. 4. Seeking restoration of the said writ petition, this application was filed on 19.05.2000 supported by the affidavit of the counsel for the petitioners pointing out the reasons and circumstances wherefor the matter could not be attended in the revised call though the counsel asserted having attended the Court in the early hours. It has also been stated that the counsel left the Court at about 9:45 a.m. making the assessment that the case was likely to be called only after the Break, i.e., after 10:30 a.m., but upon attending the Court at 10:30 a.m. found that the petition was called out a few minutes before the Break and was dismissed. 5. It appears that this restoration application was considered by the Honble Single Judge on several occasions in the year 2000 and on 24.10.2000 it was directed that an additional affidavit be filed stating the date of death of the petitioners father Panna. Such an aspect was obviously related to the merits of the case. However, such affidavit came to be filed only on 16.07.2007 and thereafter notices on the restoration application were ordered to be issued on 13.10.2007. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents though has attempted to submit that in relation to the writ petition filed in the year 2000, the present restoration application is being considered after about 8 years but then, the facts and circumstances available on record make out that this restoration application remained pending for all this time essentially awaiting compliance of the requirements of the order dated 24.10.2000. 7. 7. In any case, so far the aspect of restoration is concerned, for the reasons as stated in the application supported by the affidavit of the counsel, this Court is satisfied that there was a bona fide mistake on the part of the counsel for having not attended the matter when the same was called out in the revised call and it shall be in the interest of justice that the writ petition is considered on its merits. 8. Accordingly, this restoration application allowed. While the order dated 11.05.2000 is recalled, the writ petition is ordered to be restored to its original number. 9. The additional affidavit as filed in this restoration application on 16.07.2007 be placed in the file of the said writ petition; and the writ petition be placed for admission on 20.10.2008.