CM No.30292-CII of 2009 and CR No.2550 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.30292-CII of 2009 and CR No.2550 of 2008 Date of decision: 5.3.2010 Shri Krishan Goel ......Petitioner(s) Versus Krishna Devi ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) The present petition was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 15.5.2009 noticing the fact that service upon the respondent could not be effected for want of correct address and that even on grant of further time to do the needful on payment of costs, the petitioner failed to deposit the costs and furnish necessary requisites for serving the unserved respondent. The petitioner filed CM No.17857-CII of 2009 for recalling of the aforesaid order along with application i.e. CM No.17856-CII of 2009 for condoning the delay of 45 days in filing the aforesaid application for restoration. However, these applications were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.8.2009 granting liberty to the petitioner to file fresh applications with better particulars. The petitioner filed CM No.21194-CII of 2009 for recalling the order dated 15.5.2009 and also filed CM No.21193- CII of 2009 for condoning the delay of 83 days in filing the aforesaid application for restoration. However, the aforesaid application was also withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application vide order dated 7.12.2009. CM No.30292-CII of 2009 and CR No.2550 of 2008 2 Now CM No.30293-CII of 2009 has been filed for recalling the order dated 15.5.2009. Along with application, CM No.30292-CII of 2009 for condoning the delay of 187 days in filing the aforesaid restoration application has also been filed. In these applications, it has been submitted that the counsel had failed to appear in the case on account of some bona fide misunderstanding regarding the date in the matter and he came across the fact of the dismissal of the aforesaid order only after inspection of the record and thereafter, he came to know about the order dated 25.2.2009 for granting further time to the petitioner, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to do the needful. In the instant application, it has also been mentioned that now the petitioner has got the correct address of respondent No.3 and has also deposited the amount of costs of Rs.1,000/- on 31.8.2009. On the basis of these facts, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has submitted that non-appearance on the part of the petitioner/counsel before this Court was bona fide and therefore, the order be set aside and the petition be restored to its original number. The submission made by the petitioner is not correct. On 25.4.2009, the petitioner was represented through a counsel and the order granting further liberty to furnish correct address subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- was passed in his presence and therefore, it cannot be stated that the aforesaid order was not in the knowledge of the petitioner and the same came to his knowledge only after inspection of the case later on. Even otherwise, at least the orders passed by this Court are to the knowledge of the petitioner from 29.7.2009 when he filed the first application for restoration. Still the costs were paid on 31.8.2009 and that too without seeking any extension/enlargement of time from the Court. Thus, I find no sufficient reasons to condone the delay in filing CM No.30292-CII of 2009 and CR No.2550 of 2008 3 the restoration application as well as in the application for recalling the order dated 25.5.2009. Dismissed. March 5, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE