AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Menon, Chairperson
This is an application filed for restoration of Misc. Appeal No. 02/2014 which was dismissed by this Tribunal for non-prosecution on 24.09.2019.
The learned counsel who was appearing for the Appellant submits that he had issued a notice to his client for instructions since, nothing was heard from her for some time. There was no response to the notice and so, he submitted no instruction and then withdrew the Vakaltnama.
The Appellant admits to having received the notice sent by her counsel but because of ill health, she was not able to engage in another counsel.
The medical certificate indicating that the Appellant was suffering from osteoarthritis has been produced and she was advised two months rest.
In my view, in case the Appellant was suffering from illness, she could have informed the counsel over the telephone to seek an adjournment and/or could have engaged another counsel, but no such instructions were given by her. She need not have to come physically to Mumbai to engage another counsel or to give instruction to her counsel. The reason submitted is not very satisfactory and the Respondent has not appeared despite being served with notice.
I assume that they have no objection to restoring the Appeal. This is an Appeal of the year 2014 and has been pending for quite some time.
Under the circumstance the application for restoration is allowed on payment of cost Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to DRT Bar Association, Mumbai, for purchase of books for the library, within a period of two weeks.
Post on 10.10.2022 before Registrar for compliance.