1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 2758 of 2008 RAJKUMAR V/S CENTRAL ADMI. TRIB.,JODHPUR & ORS Mr. R BHATNAGAR, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 1.7.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order. By the impugned order, learned Tribunal has dismissed the restoration application. The O.A. was dismissed on 5.12.2007 as nobody appeared. The restoration application is said to have been filed on 15.1.2008 alleging inter-alia that on 5.12.2007 the counsel could not appear, hence this application was dismissed, and the counsel appeared after the case was dismissed in default on 5.12.2007 itself, and prayed that since he was busy in the High Court, and as soon as he got free therefrom, he appeared before the Tribunal, therefore, the application be heard on merits, but the learned Tribunal did not recall the order. Learned Tribunal has found in para 5 itself to be 2 unable to believe the version of the applicant's counsel that after the case was dismissed in limine on 5.12.2007, on the very day itself, the counsel as soon as he got free from the High Court, appeared before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal did not recall the order. It is also even found that the allegation made by learned counsel is vague, as no particulars of the case have been given, wherein he was busy in the High Court. We do not find any error in this part of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. It is a different story that had the theory of the counsel appearing before the Tribunal on 5.12.2007 itself after dismissal any trace of truth, the minimum that was expected was that at least the counsel could have filed an application on that very day, pointing out these circumstances, as against which, the restoration application has been filed much after even 30 days. May be that for filing restoration application, the applicant's presence was felt by the counsel to be necessary, but then in any case, nothing prevented the counsel from filing the application before the Tribunal on 5.12.2007 itself, which could have shown some bonafides. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/