JUDGMENT : 1. None appears on behalf of the applicant to press the instant application, seeking recalling of the order dated 27th September, 2016, passed by this Bench, even at the time of second call. 2. The order dated 27th September, 2016, is reproduced hereinbelow :- “This appeal is pending in the list for quite sometime. Earlier, on 22nd September, 2016 and 26th September, 2016, this matter was adjourned because of non-representation on the part of the appellant. Today also, when the matter is called, no one appears in support of the instant matter. It is quite evident that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. In such circumstances, the instant appeal along with the connected applications, being CAN 9725 of 2016 and CAN 9726 of 2016, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed”. 3. The order dated 27th September, 2016, clearly indicates that the appeal was pending in the list for a long time and was adjourned from time-to-time solely because of non-representation on the part of the appellant. Even on that day, i.e. on 27th September, 2016, none appeared in support of the matter when it was called, which prompted this Court to dismiss the appeal along with the connected applications, being CAN 9725 of 2016 and CAN 9726 of 2016, for reasons stated in the said order dated 27th September, 2016. 4. In the present application, the only reason for the absence of the advocate on 27th September, 2016, has been supplied in paragraph 7. It says that due to “serious illness and dental pain” of the learned advocate representing the appellant, he could not be present in Court at the time of call. However, there is no reason supplied anywhere in the application as to why no one came forward to prosecute the matter on 22nd September, 2016 and 26th September, 2016 on behalf of the appellant, even if the learned advocate remained absent for three consecutive days – as sought to be stated in paragraph 7 of the instant application. In Sankari Naskar v. Kolkata Port Trust & Ors., reported in (2016) 1 CLJ (Cal). = AIR 2016 Cal. In Sankari Naskar v. Kolkata Port Trust & Ors., reported in (2016) 1 CLJ (Cal). = AIR 2016 Cal. 91 , it has been observed to the effect that a situation cannot be allowed to occur where a litigant – having carriage of proceeding – is allowed to keep his/her lis pending indefinitely before a Court of law thereby causing immense prejudice to the other side who is invariably kept on tenterhooks for an indefinite period of time. A lis cannot be successively brought back to life merely because a litigant has a right to file a recalling application seeking restoration of his/her lis after each dismissal. This would result in a situation simply unheard of and unacceptable in a modern justice system i.e., a lis pending in perpetuity. The closure of a lis, not prosecuted with due diligence or in right earnest by a litigant, therefore, is inevitably warranted especially when it is evident from record that a litigant is not prosecuting his/her matter with due diligence and in right earnest or pursuing the same vigorously. It is quite evident that the appellant has sought to take recourse to unacceptable tactics solely in order to keep his lis alive before this Court. Dental pain and serious illness could have been the reason for the advocate’s absence on 27th September, 2016, but why the learned advocate was not present on 22nd and 26th September, has not been stated anywhere in the present application. So far as the present application is concerned, the records reveal it was adjourned on 23rd November, 2016, since no one came forward to prosecute the matter. Today also, even at the time of second call, the learned advocate representing the appellant is not present. In such a fact situation, if the present application is kept pending it will result in immense prejudice caused to the respondents since a lis will be kept alive to be prosecuted only when a litigant chooses to do so at his own sweet will. This is quite unacceptable and for reasons stated above, the instant application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.