JAYENDRA SINGH Vs. D H LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Registry has reported the restoration to be barred by time. The appeal was dismissed on 1.4.2005 as nobody appeared even till 3.13 P.M. The restoration application has been filed on 3/10/2005. The only ground given in the application under Section 5 is, that on 1/4/2005 the counsel was out of station, and the factum of dismissal was not within the knowledge of the counsel, and it was only on 2/9/2005, that the clerk of the counsel informed about the appeal being listed on 1/4/2005, and having been dismissed on that day itself.

(2.) From perusal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is clear that it is mentioned in para-4 that the counsel for the applicant had to go out of station on 30/3/2005, and returned on 3/4/2005. Suffice it to say that according to the prevalent practice in the High Court list of first April is already available with the counsel on 30th, and therefore, even before proceeding he could see the list, and make arrangements for appearance, and in any case after return, it was expected of him to have seen the cause list of the dates on which he was out of headquarter. Thus, if the learned counsel did not choose to see the cause list of those dates, when he was out of station, it hardly constitutes any sufficient cause whereby the learned counsel may have been prevented from becoming aware of the factum of the dismissal of the appeal till 2/9/2005.

(3.) In that view of the matter, the ground taken in the application under section 5 neither inspires any confidence, nor makes out any sufficient cause. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the restoration application is also dismissed.