1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. C.A.O. NO. 852/09 & M.C.A. ST. NO. 10495/09 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2457/90 Umashankar s/o Durgaprasad Agrawal & others .vs. The State of Maharashtra & others _________ _________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrars orders. Mr. B.N. Mohta, Advocate for applicants/petitioners, Mr. D.P. Thakre, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 & 2, Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate for respondent no. 3. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI & PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 5, 2010. 1] Both these applications are taken up for hearing as the grounds narrated in both the applications are factually concurrent. 2] Writ Petition No. 2457/90 was dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court (Coram : S. Radhakrishnan & K.J. Rohee, JJ.) on 15.7.2004. 3] The application for restoration is filed on 7.7.2009 which is delayed by 1790 days. 4] The facts which are common in both the applications can be very briefly referred to as follows :- a) At the time of filing of petition, the petitioner had 2 engaged the Advocate Shri V.C. Daga (as he then was), whose junior colleague Advocate Miss J.D. Uttamani had filed a Vakalatnama (signed the Vakalatnama) and this appearance of second Advocate with Advocate who was engaged was not within the knowledge of the Writ Petitioner, b) The petitioner did not know as to the fate of the Writ Petition after elevation of his Advocate Shri V.C. Daga (as he then was), c) Normally, after elevation of an Advocate, notice would be sent to the litigant by the Court which did not happen in present case, d) Even Advocate Miss J.D. Uttamani did not inform the petitioner about the pendency of the petition or its dismissal, e) The petitioner is required to suffer the consequences of situation and should not be required to suffer for which he is not responsible. 5] The factual narration contained in the applications is on the face of it forceful and impressive. 6] This Court, however, noticed that on the cover- sheet of the Writ Petition, names of other Advocates, namely, Shri D.C. Daga, Mr. S.V. Bhutada & Miss D.M. Tilwani are appearing with further narration “power filed”. 3 7] This Court, therefore, called the ‘B’ file. It is seen from perusal of the file that a Vakalatnama of all these Advocates signed by Ramlal N. Agrawal purportedly signed on 3 rd November, 2002 or around that, is on record. It is also seen that a notice for engagement of another Advocate which was sent by this Court, is served on one Mr. M.U. Agrawal for Shri Umashankar Agrawal along with Bailiff’s report. 8] Normally, whenever for any reason Advocates do not appear and a petition suffers dismissal, this Court would not and would never be unmindful of the fact that a litigant should not suffer when he is not responsible for any lapse. 9] It is seen that present is a case where for the reasons best known to the petitioners they have chosen to neglect to what they have done. When the averments contained in the applications are compared with record, it is clear that by suppressing facts the applicants have approached another Advocate who was well unmindful to the record and blindly believed in them. 10] Newly engaged Advocate has then filed an application for restoration and application for condonation of delay and has let the litigant to make allegations against Advocates. 11] On being shown the Vakalatnama of Advocate 4 Shri D.C. Daga, etc. signed by the petitioners and the notice sent by the Court for engagement of another Advocate, learned Advocate for the petitioners had no words to explain and pursue present applications. 12] Situation to which this Court is driven is to dismiss both these applications with costs, which we do. Order accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE. J.