Judgment : 1. The Petitioner filed a suit seeking recovery of money. The Trial Court by the order dated 31-8-2005 dismissed the suit for default. Aggrieved by the same, Miscellaneous Petition No. 808 of 2005 was filed along with an application for condoning the delay since there was delay in filing the miscellaneous petition. The Miscellaneous petition was rejected on the ground that no sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 2. Sri Urval Ramanand, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that due to the mistake of a lawyer not being present when the matter was called the impugned order has been passed by the Trial Court. On the sole ground that the name of the Advocate who was responsible for the same was not mentioned in the affidavit, the miscellaneous petition was also rejected. Hence, he pleads that the impugned order be set aside. 3. On hearing both the Counsel, I’am of the considered view that there is no ground made out to entertain this petition for the following reasons: - (1) The order sheet of the Trial Court would disclose that neither the petitioner nor his Advocate were present on most of the dates when the matter was listed for consideration. It was therefore ultimately that in view of the absence of the petitioner and his Counsel the suit was dismissed. In the miscellaneous petition seeking to recall the said order, the only ground urged is that the Counsel could not be present and even the name of the Advocate is not mentioned in the application. The application lacks merit and there are no bona fides in it. The Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. The callous manner in which the case has been conducted and the manner in which the application have been filed is a sorry state of affairs. Notwithstanding the gross negligence in prosecuting the suit the plaintiff has not even chosen to file an appropriate application culling out all the facts for the consideration of the Court. Even after dismissal of the suit, no seriousness in forthcoming while seeking restoration. The main ground for restoration is bereft of any corroboration. The approach of the petitioner does not call any equitable relief from this Court. I find no error committed by both the Courts below while passing the impugned order. Even after dismissal of the suit, no seriousness in forthcoming while seeking restoration. The main ground for restoration is bereft of any corroboration. The approach of the petitioner does not call any equitable relief from this Court. I find no error committed by both the Courts below while passing the impugned order. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected. No costs.