2009 (11) TMI 892 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the order of rejection of the application for restoration as well as the application for dismissal of the writ application for non prosecution are liable to be set aside?

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of Writ Petition for non-prosecution
2. Rejection of application for restoration of the writ petition

Dismissal of Writ Petition for non-prosecution:
The case involved the deceased mother of the appellants being dispossessed from her shop due to the deceptive acts of her Manager. Legal proceedings ensued, with the appellants challenging an order in the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, leading to subsequent applications for restoration. The High Court rejected the restoration applications citing delay and latches. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances, noting that the appellants had diligently pursued the case since 1982. The Court found no delay in the restoration application filing and held that the appellants should not be penalized for their counsel's unavailability, especially considering the counsel's subsequent designation as the Additional Advocate General. Referring to a previous case, the Court concluded that the appellants should not suffer due to their advocate's absence. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order of dismissal for non-prosecution.

Rejection of application for restoration of the writ petition:
The Supreme Court further addressed the rejection of the application for restoration of the writ petition. After detailed examination, the Court found no delay caused by the appellants in filing the restoration application. Emphasizing that the appellants had engaged legal representation throughout the proceedings, the Court deemed it unjust to penalize them for their counsel's unavailability. Drawing parallels with a previous case, the Court held that the appellants should not face repercussions due to their advocate's absence. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order rejecting the restoration application. The Court restored the writ petition to its original file, subject to a condition requiring the appellants to pay costs to the respondent within a specified timeframe. Failure to comply with the cost payment condition would result in dismissal of the appeals and affirmation of the impugned orders. The Court directed the High Court to expedite the disposal of the writ petition upon the appellants' compliance with the cost payment condition. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.