( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 192 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3009 OF 2006 Ramhari s/o Bansi Ghadge APPLICANT VERSUS Rambhau Mahadev Raut and others RESPONDENTS ..... Miss. Shyamoleena Sarkar, advocate holding for Mr. S.R. Barlinge, advocate for the applicant. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 4th February, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The application is for restoration of the petition which came to be dismissed vide order dated 26th June, 2008. The learned Single Judge (Savant, J.) observed that the matter was called out in both the sessions, but none had appeared for the parties and, therefore, it was assumed that the party had no interest in proceeding with the petition. Consequently, it was dismissed for want of prosecution. This order is sought ( 2 ) to be recalled vide the present application which is filed on 02-05-2009 i.e. after delay of about one year. 3. The reason for the delay is stated in paragraph No. 4 of the application. It is stated that the counsel was required to contact the petitioner and time was required for obtaining certain documents from him relating to his claim. Be it mentioned here that not a single document is filed alongwith the application and the explanation stated in paragraph No. 4 of the application is laconic and lame. 4. The averments in paragraph No. 3 of the application would show that the learned counsel had knowledge about dismissal of the petition because it is stated in the application as follows : “However, when lateron, he appeared before this Hon’ble Court on the same day and mentioned about the matter and his absence at the time of calling of the matter, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to orally direct to file application for recalling of the dismissal order.” In fact, if that was so, then there was no reason to ( 3 ) file the application on very next day. There was no necessity to call for the petitioner or to collect some documents relating to claim as stated in paragraph No. 4 of the application. The order itself shows that in both the sessions, the matter was called out, but the counsel was absent. The counsel has not filed his own affidavit in support of his contention that he lateron had appeared before the Court, but it is an application filed by the petitioner with his own verification, who had no personal knowledge about proceedings which took on the same day. The tendency of remaining absent at the time of hearing and particularly at the time of final hearing of the petition, with a belief that some time lateron, the dismissal order may be casually recalled by showing some or the other reason for absence, must be deprecated. There is no substance in the application and as such, it is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/ca192-2010 ( 4 )