AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Petitioner filed MA/605/2023 seeking restoration of Revision Petition No. 2552 of 2016, which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 17.10.2023.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner has stated that the main counsel was unwell and thus could not appear on 17.10.2023 when the case was dismissed for non-prosecution. She further reiterated the facts stated in the said Application seeking restoration of the case, and argued that the IA has been filed immediately after dismissed of the case. The non-appearance of the learned counsel on 17.10.2023 was completely inadvertent and due to circumstances and situations beyond control. She, therefore, sought restoration of the Revision Petition.
Heard the learned counsel. The order dated 17.10.2023, is self-explanatory. The IA/605/2023 now filed seeking restoration mainly justified the reasons for non-appearance of the learned counsel on 17.10.2023. The same, however, does not address anything substantial in respect of the repeated failures of the petitions in ensuring compliance with orders of this Commission. The grounds advanced and the justifications argued are not commensurate to the inherent failures on multiple occasions.
The Application for restoration of RP No. 2552 of 2016 is rejected.
MA/605/2023 is, therefore, disposed of accordingly.