High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Dinesh Chandra Sharma v. Central Govt. I.T. & Others - WRIT - C No. 15030 of 1985  RD-AH 8123 (21 April 2006)
Court No. 14
Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 155 of 2006
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15030 of 1985
Dinesh Chandra Sharma ---- Petitioner
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
& others. ------ Respondents.
Hon'ble V.C.Misra, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
This writ petition was lastly dismissed by this Court on 27.8.2004 for want of prosecution as the case was listed peremptorily for 27.8.2004 and no one appeared on that date on behalf of the petitioner. The record reveals that in the present case petitioner was represented by several counsel besides one Sri Vijai Gautam who had sent his illness slip but no other counsel had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Subsequently a Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 172857 of 2004 was moved for recalling the order-dated 27.8.2004 by Sri Vijai Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. This application was dismissed by this Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties vide order dated 8.8.2005 on the ground that no sufficient cause had been shown in the application for restoring the case to its original number. Thereafter again another Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 162175 of 2005 had been moved for recalling the order dated 8.8.2005 and also the order dated 27.8.2004. This application was listed for orders on 7.12.2005 but again on that date when the case was called out in the revised list no one was present on behalf of the petitioner/applicant to press the application whereas learned counsel for the respondents was present. Accordingly the said restoration application No. 162175 of 2005 was also rejected for want of prosecution. Thereafter another undated restoration application No. 155 of 2006 was moved for recalling the orders dated 27.8.2004 and dated 7.12.2005. It is pertinent to note here that this application was not moved by Sri Vijai Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner who had defaulted but by another counsel specially engaged for the said purpose namely Km. Sumati Rani Gupta.
Sri Piyuswh Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondents has filed counter affidavit/objection to the present Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 155 of 2006 to which a rejoinder affidavit in rebuttal has been served upon him.
From perusal of the record it is clear that in the instant case restoration applications are being filed one after another. The moving of restoration of restoration of restoration application, time and again itself reveal that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the writ petition seriously and has been taking the Court and the proceedings very casually. It is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the Court and proceedings. More so the present restoration application No.155 of 2006 and earlier restoration application no. 162175 of 2005 which was rejected on 7.12.2005 has not been moved by the counsel, who had defaulted. This type of practice adopted by the parties has been strongly deprecated by the Hon. Supreme Court in its decision rendered in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another Vs. Raju Reddiar and another (A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1005), wherein it has been held that once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, much less with the change of the advocate-on-record. This practice of changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with heavy hand for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice.
On the above said facts and circumstances of the instant case, I do not find any cause much less sufficient cause to allow the restoration application No. 155 of 2006 and recall the order dated 7.12.2005 whereby the restoration application was rejected for want of prosecution moved for recalling the earlier dismissal order where by the restoration application moved for restoring the writ petition to its original number was rejected. More so, since learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner has failed to show any provision in the Rules of Court, 1952 which permits the defaulter to move the restoration of restoration of restoration application.
In the result the restoration application no. 155 of 2006 is hereby rejected. There will be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.