AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Mallika Arya, AM:-
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Shri Shubham Mishra had filed his vakalatnama in the O.A. on 19.09.2025, but since his name was not reflecting the cause list and name of earlier counsel Shri Saket Agarwal was appearing, he could not appear in the O.A. and the same got dismissed on the ground of want of prosecution.
The counsel for the respondents submits that there is no such pleading in the M.A. 1853/2025 for seeking restoration of the O.A./655/2018 and further the applicant's counsel is not able to explain as to why the counsel for the applicant was not appearing continuously.
We have considered the matter, perused the pleadings and documents attached with M.A./1853/2025 and O.A./655/2018.
On perusal of the record of the Original Application, it is observed that Shri Shubham Mishra filed his Vakalatnama on 19.09.2025. Earlier he was appearing as proxy counsel for the applicant.
Even if the name of the counsel for the applicant, Shri Shubham Mishra was not appearing in the cause list, he should have been vigilant enough to scrutinize the cause list and appear on the date when the case was being called for final hearing.
We do not find any reason to allow this M.A. for restoration. The same is dismissed. No costs.