1 cri.appln.487 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 487 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1347 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1358 OF 2005 IN C.C. NO. 2216/SS/2005 Mr. Surinder Singh and Ors. ... Petitioner Versus Mr. Indravadan Vrajlal Shah ... Respondent Mr. Gajendra Naik i/by Mr. P.R. Khobragade for the Applicant. Mr. Nikhil Mengde i/by M/s. Thakore Jariwala and Associates for Respondent. Mr. Rajesh More, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : JANUARY 13, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for restoration of Criminal Application No. 304 of 2009 filed for restoration of the Writ Petition No. 1347 of 2007. The application is opposed by the respondents. The proceedings of the 2 cri.appln.487 of 2010 Writ Petition as can be seen form the record has a history of total negligence on the part of the applicants. 2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners on 20th July, 2007 to challenge the order dated 17th October, 2006 passed by the Sessions Court allowing the criminal application filed by the respondents. In this writ petition directions as regards service came to be given on 30th August, 2008. The applicants did not comply with the directions and consequently the petition came to be dismissed. Then Criminal Application No. 396 of 2008 came to be filed for restoration of the petition which was allowed by the order dated 3rd April, 2009 and the petition was restored to file. On 10th June, 2009 another conditional order was passed by this court, which condition was once again not complied with and the petition came to be dismissed for the second time on 3rd July, 2009. The Petitioner therefore, on 23rd November, 2009 filed Criminal Application No. 304 of 2009 for restoration of the petition. This application when it was on the board on 23rd November, 2009, applicant no. 1 was present in person. He informed the court that he wanted to change his lawyer and sought time to engage another lawyer. Therefore, the court granted him time of almost three months and 3 cri.appln.487 of 2010 adjourned the application to 12th January, 2010. During the time granted, the applicants neither engaged new lawyer nor attended to the matter. Consequently on 26th February, 2010 the application came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the applicant no. 1 being a "layman and common man" was not aware of the court procedure and failed to engage an advocate to appear for him. It is also claimed that he was not in a position to appoint a lawyer due to financial “ problem” and being layman he failed to follow Criminal Application No. 304 of 2009. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim made by the applicants of being a layman or a common man is not correct because the applicant is a businessman and was director of M/s. Rib Engineers Private Limited. The respondents are presently the directors of the said company. Be that as it may. Petitioner no. 1 had taken up the responsibility upon himself to change his lawyer and untill he actually engaged another lawyer, was duty bound to attend the proceedings. 4. At Para 17 of the application it has been claimed that after due 4 cri.appln.487 of 2010 diligence, search and effort somewhere in the month of August, he learnt about the dismissal of the Criminal Application No. 304 of 2009. It is not known what was the diligent search and efforts made by the applicants. It is not the case of the applicants that during the period of 23rd November, 2009 till August, 2010, the applicants had visited the court offices to make any enquiries. It appears that on 5th August, 2008 applicant no. 1 applied for certified copy of the order dated 26th February, 2010. This certified copy was collected by the applicants on 31st August, 2010. Perusal of the certified copy shows that it was ready for collection on 18th August, 2010. Thereafter the present application was filed on 22nd October, 2010. The above chronology shows that at every stage of the matter, the applicant have been guilty of delay and laches. The Petition has not been attended to diligently. Such applicant does not deserve any concession from this court on the ground of age because that is the only argument which has been harped upon on the part of the applicant. Hence, application is dismissed. (Judge)