JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. In re: CAN 12298 of 2016 1. This application has been taken out seeking recall of the order dated 29th November, 2016, passed by this Court in FMA 2373 of 2015 (MAT 879 of 2015) with CAN 7523 of 2015. The said order dated 29th November, 2016, is reproduced in its entirety hereinbelow :- “None appears in support of the appeal as well as the connected application even at the time of second call, although the learned advocates representing the respondents are present. On perusal of the records reveal that at least four learned advocates have been engaged on behalf of the appellants, none of whom are present in Court. Thus, it is quite evident that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the matter. The appeal along with the connected application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.” 2. In the present application, it has been stated, inter alia, in paragraph 3 that the learned advocate on record of the petitioners could not appear due to his sudden illness on 29th November, 2016. In the sub-paragraphs under paragraph 3 of the application, it has been further stated as follows :- “(a) Your petitioners states that in the said matter four Ld. Advocates including the Ld. Advocate on record have appeared in the earlier occasions as the Ld. Advocate on record called them after tendering response to the matter at the time of first call because if the matter is not responded at the time of first call the same will not be taken up for hearing in the second call. On 29.11.2016 the said matter was appearing as serial no.5 but actually the said matter was the second matter for hearing as ‘Application’ before Their Lordships. The copy of the extract of the list dated 29.11.2016 is annexed herewith and is marked with ‘M’. (b) Arthritis of knee joints with sudden pain for long days past and he is under the medical treatment. On the very date i.e. 29.11.2016 the Ld. The copy of the extract of the list dated 29.11.2016 is annexed herewith and is marked with ‘M’. (b) Arthritis of knee joints with sudden pain for long days past and he is under the medical treatment. On the very date i.e. 29.11.2016 the Ld. Advocate on record at the time of coming to the Hon’ble High Court on the way before availing ear (sic, car) faced a peculiar accute (sic, acute) pain in the right knee and was compelled to wait for about one hour for immediate treatment and came to the Hon’ble Court after a late for about one hour and his clerk was also with him. (c) The Ld. Advocate on record was in the mind that as there will be no response on behalf of the appellant the matter will not be called on at the second call. In view of such there was no intimation to the other Ld. Advocates appearing in the matter with the Ld. Advocate on record for the appellants for hearing the same. (d) The Ld. Advocate on record entered into the said Hon’ble Court at about 11 A.M. and on enquiry came to know that the said matter was called on and dismissed at the second call before he entered the Hon’ble Court Room.” 3. Even a bare glance of the averments made in the application, as reproduced hereinabove, reveals the same is contradictory in nature. While at the very beginning of paragraph 3, the petitioners have stated that the Advocate-on-Record could not appear due to his sudden illness on 29th November, 2016, they have given a complete different reason in paragraphs 3(a) and (b) which has been quoted above. That apart, the averments made in paragraph 3(c), which has also been quoted above, are purely based on hypothetical assumption. It is not the mind of the Advocate-on-Record which determines as to how the list is called. The practice of this Court is to call the list not once but at least twice in order to give all parties an opportunity to come forward to prosecute/defend their matter. It is not the mind of the Advocate-on-Record which determines as to how the list is called. The practice of this Court is to call the list not once but at least twice in order to give all parties an opportunity to come forward to prosecute/defend their matter. Even if we assume for a moment that the Advocate-on-Record of the petitioners had some difficulty in appearing within time on 29th November, 2016, it is not stated anywhere in the instant application as to why the other Advocates were not present in Court, either at the time of first call or the second call. 4. Now comes the interesting part. Today, the instant application seeking recall of the order dated 29th November, 2016, has been called twice. None appears in support of the instant application, seeking recall of the order dated 29th November, 2016, at the time of second call. Therefore, this is a classical instance where the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Sankari Naskar v. Kolkata Port Trust & Ors., reported in AIR 2016 Cal 91 is clearly applicable wherein the following observations have been made :– “It is quite evident from the records that the writ petitioner was not at all diligent while conducting her case. Once her writ petition was dismissed for default on 20th January, 2015, and subsequently restored by an order dated 19th June, 2015, the writ petition was required to be pursued vigorously and prosecuted with due diligence and in the right earnest. 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 will result in a situation where a litigant, having carriage of proceedings, 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. It will also result in a situation simply unheard of and unacceptable in a modern justice system, i.e., a lis pending in perpetuity. It will also result in a situation simply unheard of and unacceptable in a modern justice system, i.e., a lis pending in perpetuity. Successive applications for recalling, emanating from each order of dismissal in respect of a single lis and consequently having the said lis restored to its original file and number each and every time is an unacceptable proposition, which, if indulged by a Court, will encourage a litigant to adopt such tactics only in order to keep his/her lis pending for an indefinite period of time. 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 having his/her lis restored successively, consequent upon each order of dismissal, by having the same recalled, each and every time”. 5. Following the ratio of the decision rendered in Sankari Naskar (supra) and taking into consideration the facts of the instant case, we have no hesitation to hold in the present application – once again – that the applicants herein are not at all interested in prosecuting their matters. As such, the instant application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Biswanath Somadder & Sankar Acharyya, JJ. I agree.