9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed independently. Be that as it may, even if we consider that the application i.e. IA No. A41 of 2023 is duly constituted even then there has been continues lapse on the part of the Appellant in perusing the applications before the Adjudicating Authority and for that matter there is no error committed by the Adjudicating Authority in passing the impugned order - Insofar as, the decision relied upon, in the case of RAFIQ AND ANOTHER VERSUS MUNSHILAL AND ANOTHER [ 1981 (4) TMI 255 - SUPREME COURT ], is concerned, there is no dispute about it but each case has to be decided on its own facts and the facts of this case are such in which discretion for the purpose of restoration of the application by recalling of the order dated 27. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us: No one is present from the either side, despite the matter being called three times. In the interest of justice, list the matter after three weeks on 12.05.2022 5. Thereafter, the case was listed on 08.07.2022 and the following order was passed: None appears on behalf of both the parties. In the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned by four weeks. It is made clear to the parties that if no one appears on the next date of hearing, appropriate order will be passed. 6. Ultimately, the case was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.08.2022 with the following order:- None appears for the parties. On 08.07.2022 also, no one had appeared on behalf of the parties. Therefore, the matter is dismissed for non-prose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfident that the counsel appearing for him or her behalf shall take care of the case. 10. We have heard counsel for the Appellant and perused the material available on record. 11. In this case, there are two applications i.e. IA No.A41 of 2023 which has been filed for restoration of the appeal by recalling the order dated 27.02.2023and IA No. 1215 of 2023 for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration. It is needless to mention that limitation to file an application for restoration is governed by Article 122 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides that an application for restoration has to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of dismissal. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that a delay 194 day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
