.IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR CC.G l. PETITIONERS :- ^•7"^^'"' v^v-" ,,^ .;(?'»-'' M.C.C.No/ ^ /2010. ' l.Anil Asana S% Late S.Asana, aged about 44 years , Pastor, Resident ofTarbahar, Bilaspue P.S Tarbahar, Tah. & District Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. Anil Benjamin S/o S.Benjamin aged about 53 years , R/o Bhartiya nagar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3^A.K.Das S/0 G.Das aged about 53 years R/o Railway Colony, Tarbahar Bilaspur ,District Bilaspur (C.G.) . VERSUS RESPONDENTS:- l.smt. Faganibai W/o late Bhagwat Rai ,aged about 73 years R/o near Tarbahar Church ,Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 2-. Indian Church Coucil ofdesciples ofChriest Bilaspur ,Through its executive Secretary Mr. N.L.Soni, Advocate, R/o near Indu Udyan Jarahabhata Bilspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Application seekins the'restoration of W. P.fC.) No.141 /2007, from order passed by this Hon'ble Court dtd. by 15/04/2007. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C.N0.194of2010 Petitioner ResBondent Versus Anil Asana & others Smt. Faganibai & another APPLICATION SEEKING THE RESTORATION OF W.P.(C) No. 141/2007, FROM ORDER PASSED BYTHIS HON'BLE COURT DATED BY 25/04/2007 (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Suresh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Heard ORDER (ORAU (Passed on 23"i ofApril, 2010) This is an application for restoration of original W.P. (C) No. 141/2007. The writ petition was listed on 25th day of April 2007. The matterwas called for hearing twice, on both occasion none appeared, nor any representation was made on behalf of the petitioners. Thus, the matter was dismissed for want of proseeution. The petitioners, thereafter did not take any steps to restore the writ petition. The present apptication seeking restoration of the writ petition which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 25.04.2007, was filed on 01.04.2010 alongwith I.A. No. 1, for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration. Reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay is that the counsel appearing for the petitioners could not see the cause list carefully and thus, he was not aware about the order till 11.03.2010. No other reasons has beeri assigned except that the matter was listed in the month of April, 2007 when the mother of the counsel appearing for the petitioner was hospitalized. Thus, the present application has been filed after a delay of 1043 days, without explaining sufficient reasons. 4 ''%, 8 K yj •gtet-«»-'^!- The reasons stated by the counsel of the petitioners is neither proper nor justified as the Advocate appearing for the petitioner is under an obligation to be careful in examining the cause list and hearing of the matter before the Court. When the matter was dismissed on 25.04.2007, the petitioner has thereafter not taken any steps to file application for condonation of delay for such a long period without reasons. In Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujrat Industrial Development Gorporation and another, it has been observed that: "8. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful mannerwhich sub serves the ends ofjustice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay,, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay-is inordinate-Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987)2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v.Shantaram Baburao Patil, (2001) 9 SCC 106." In Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharashtra Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such 2010 (2) Supreme 115 (JT 2009 (3) SC 487) ^y"'"^ ....^....^^ 8. 9. negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. In R.N. Bose Vs. Union of India , relied on in Yunus (supra) it was observed that no relief can be given to the petitioner who without any reasonable explanation approaches the Court after inordinate delay. In State of M.P. Vs. Nandlal , relied on in Yunus (supra), it was stated that the High Court in exercise of its discretion does no ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may dedine to intervene. Applying the well settled prindples of law to the facts of the case on hand, wherein the petitioners have failed to explain sufficient reasons for such an inordinate delay of 1043 days in filing the restoration application, the petitioners do not deserve any relief. 10. Consequently, the application for restoration is dismissed. Sd/- Satfeb K. Agwh«tn (Arun 3 (AIR 1970 SC 470) 4 (AIR 1987 SC 251)