IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER 27.11.2008. S.B. CIVIL RESTORATION APPLICATION NO.528/2008 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.0525/2008 (Def.) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Suresh Pareek, for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This restoration application has been filed because the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.8.2008 on account of the pre- emptory order which was passed by the court on 17.7.2008 The writ petition was filed on 31.3.2008 and the Registry pointed out the defect on 31.3.2008 itself. The matter came to be listed before the Registrar on 30.6.2008 but none appeared on the side of the petitioner before the Registrar and the Registrar granted the time to the petitioner for removing the defects. Since the defects were not removed within the time allowed to the petitioner the writ petition came to be listed in court on 17.7.2008. The court granted two weeks further time in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner for removing the defects by a pre-emptory order. Inspite of the aforesaid time having been granted the defects were not removed and consequently the writ petition came to be dismissed on 13.8.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the restoration application has submitted that the counsel who appeared in the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner did not file the certified copy of the order impugned though the same was made available to his counsel. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case as stated above on 31.3.2008 itself when the writ petition was filed the defect was pointed out. Inspite of the above for three months the defects were not removed and the matter came to be listed before the Registrar on 30.6.2008 when two weeks time was allowed to remove the defects but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner nor the defects were removed. Two weeks time was further allowed by the court on 17.7.2008 on the request of the learned counsel and since the order was not complied with in view of the pre-emptory order the writ petition was dismissed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was a case of negligence on the part of the counsel and the petitioner should not be made to suffer, suffice it to say that, that is a matter between the petitioner and the counsel and the court is not concerned with the same whether there was any negligence on the part of the learned counsel or not. In the facts and circumstances there is no sufficient cause shown to restore the writ petition. This restoration application is dismissed. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS