AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Notice of Motion seeks condonation of delay of 947 days in filing an application for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 31 August, 2010. The affidavit proceeds on the footing that this Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, despite there being no procedural lapse. It is not the case of the applicant that this Court dismissed the appeal when the name of the Advocate or the parties were incorrectly printed or that there was no name of the Advocate mentioned as against the parties'' description. Thus, there was no mistake or error in printing of the daily board. The matter was notified in terms of the computerized programme. In such circumstances, it was solely the responsibility of the applicant to have remained present and the absence of the Advocate does not mean that this Court should necessarily proceed to restore such appeal. All the more, when the Department took nearly three years to notice the dismissal, this is a case of gross negligence on the part of the Department and which cannot be condoned. The explanation is routine and lacking in bona fides. The Motion is, therefore, dismissed.
Let this Sr. Official and who is in-charge of legal matters take note of this matter and proceed against those who have brought about such a situation for the Department.