9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if the Counsel engaged by the Appellant, left for USA without informing the Appellant. There are no doubt that the parties who have been pursuing this application continuously for two years, i.e. from the date of filing till ultimately dismissed on 6th October, 2023 would not appear deliberately. The Review Application i.e. RA 200 of 2023 which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal is also on the issue that the Counsel for the Appellant did not appear but the Appellant has given the reason for the non-appearance and said reason has not been appreciated by the learned Tribunal while dismissing Restoration Application 2 of 2024. The Appellant has invested his hard earned money of Rs.65 lakhs and that the claim of the Appellant was once admitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e following Order was passed:- New RA-200/2023:- None appears for the Appellant despite the repeated calls. Restoration Application No.200/2023 is dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. In order to get the RA 200/2023 restored, the Applicant/Appellant filed another application i.e. Restoration Application No.2 of 2024. The said Application was heard by the Tribunal and dismissed on 11th January, 2024 with the following Order:- New Rest-2/2024:- This application has been filed seeking to restore RA-200/2023, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 14.12.2023. We have heard the submissions made by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and perused the application. We do not see any reason to allow the prayer. IA dismissed. 4. Counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the application. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that strangely RA 2 of 2024 was shown in the Supplementary List this time, therefore, she had a cause to submit before the Tribunal that since RA 200 of 2024 was listed in the ordinary list, therefore, it did not come to the notice of the Counsel and also there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the Counsel not to appear in the case. The Appellant has also relied upon a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Rafique and Another. Vs. Munshi Lal Another (AIR 1981 SC 1400) in which Hon ble Supreme Court has held as following:- The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obliga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has engaged his counsel remain supremely confident that his Counsel would appear on his behalf and submit his case, should not be penalized if the Counsel engaged by the Appellant, left for USA without informing the Appellant. We have no doubt in our mind that the parties who have been pursuing this application continuously for two years, i.e. from the date of filing till ultimately dismissed on 6th October, 2023 would not appear deliberately. The Review Application i.e. RA 200 of 2023 which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal is also on the issue that the Counsel for the Appellant did not appear but the Appellant has given the reason for the non-appearance and said reason has not been appreciated by the learned Tribunal while dismissing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
