Ram Prasanna Sharma, J
1. The instant petition has been filed for restoration of Writ Petition No. 2671 of 2002 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 5-10-2010.
2. As per the applicant, he was due diligent and interested in prosecuting the case. Counsel for the applicant had assured him taking care of his case
but he did not inform regarding dismissal of the case. The applicant suffered from disease and admitted in hospital for five months. On 3-9-2018 an
advertisement was published in the Dainik Bhaskar, daily news paper of Bilaspur Edition at page No.15 which is published by Bilaspur Merchant
Association, Bilaspur in which vote of thanks has been given in lieu of handing over the possession of plots in the Vyapar Vihar Yojna. The applicant
was also a candidate for allotment of the same scheme of Vypar Vihar Yojna. Thereafter, he enquired from his counsel and other sources about the
status of his writ petition, then he came to know that his writ petition is dismissed on 5-10-2010 for want of prosecution. The mistake is bona fide and
it should be condoned and the petition be restored to its original number. He placed reliance in the matter of Smt. Jyoti w/o. Shri Narayan Kumarvs.
General Manager, Canara Bank, Staff Selection (Workmen) decided by this court on 13-12-2016 in M.C.C.No. 591 of 2016.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that sufficient cause has not been explained for delay of about eight
years, therefore, it is not a case where the petition can be restored.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Perusal of the record goes to show that writ petition was filed in the year 2002 and it was listed on 5-10-2010 and it was dismissed for want of
prosecution. The reason assigned in the application would reveal that the applicant was assured by his counsel. The writ petition was dismissed in the
year 2010. The applicant was admitted in hospital in the year 2013 for five months, but application is filed after five years of admission in the hospital.
When the applicant was in good health condition, he could not have contacted his counsel regarding status of the said petition. The counsel assurance
cannot be an appropriate ground for explaining substantial delay of approximately eight years. It is the obligation on the part of the counsel to appear
before the court but it is equally important for the applicant to be vigilant in his case as well. It is the duty of the applicant to know about status of his
case.
6. In the matter of Balwant Singh (dead) vs. Jagdish Singh and others, reported in 2010 8 SC 685, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:
36. We find it unnecessary to discuss the instances which would fall under either of these classes of cases. The party should show that besides acting
bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is
whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention.
7. In the present case, applicant has failed to explain the delay prior to ailment i.e., from the year 2010 to 2013 and after improving his health condition
in the year 2013 to 2018 which comes out about more than seven years. Therefore, it is not a case where the applicant has paid due care and attention
to the petition. It is not a case where the case should be restored.
8. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
9. Parties to bear their own costs.
