AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Debangsu Basak, J
The Court : By this application, the plaintiffs seek recall of the order dated March 11, 2015.
Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiffs submits that, the plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance of an agreement in respect of an immovable property. The defendant filed a counter-claim. In such suit, the plaintiffs were found absent on September 1, 2014. Subsequently, on March 11, 2015, the Court was pleased to allow the defendant to press his counter-claim. The Court thereafter, finding that the counter-claim related to title to an immovable property lying and situate outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court dismissed the counter-claim. The appeal carried therefrom, upheld the order of dismissal of the counter-claim.
Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiffs submits that, the plaintiff No. 1 was suffering from cancer and underwent treatment. The plaintiffs therefore could not contact their advocate for the purpose of conduct of the suit. He submits that, the plaintiffs should be granted an opportunity to proceed with their suit after the restoration of the suit.
Learned advocate appearing for the defendant draws the attention of the Court to the fact that there are two plaintiffs in the suit. At best, the plaintiff no. 1 can claim himself to be suffering from cancer. There is no explanation with regard to the conduct of the second plaintiff in the application. Moreover, the documents annexed to the application shows that the plaintiff no. 1 was having treatment in 2013. There is nothing for 2014 and 2015.
The contentions of the defendant have substance. There are two plaintiffs. The application for restoration does not explain the conduct of the other plaintiff. The first plaintiff apparently was suffering from cancer. The medical documents disclosed in the application relates of 2013. There is nothing on record so far as 2014 and 2015 are concerned.
Although, a Court is required to treat an application for restoration leniently, nonetheless the requirement of the party applying for restoration to give a plausible explanation for the non-appearance of such party at the time of the disposal of the matter, is not obviated. In the facts of the present case, there being no plausible explanation for the plaintiffs not appearing on September 1, 2014 and on March 11, 2015, the application for restoration cannot be allowed.
In such circumstances, I find no merit in the present application.