- (1.) This is a second application for recall of the order. The petition was dismissed in default on 7.5.2010. The Petitioner moved an application for restoration on 17.8.2010 on the ground that the Counsel could not mark the case in the cause list and it was due to the oversight of the Counsel that the matter was dismissed in default. Unfortunately, this application was again dismissed on 3.9.2010. This second application has been moved by the Petitioner on 6.9.2010 on the ground that the Counsel for the Petitioner had developed high blood pressure on that fateful day and the petition was dismissed in default. In both the applications learned Counsel has taken the responsibility on his personal conduct.
(2.) This second application has been vehemently opposed by Sri Suresh Sharma, who says that this second application for recall is not maintainable. He says that the lower Court in the meanwhile has proceeded in the matter. He argues that if the petition is restored it will be construed by the lower courts that the proceedings thereon should be stopped, hence the application should not be allowed and it should be rejected.
(3.) Petitioner Counsel has argued that counsels are sometimes in such a situation where mistakes and oversights are quite possible. The client, who is sitting far away may not be punished for the conduct of the counsel. In the present case, personal ground has been taken on both occasions.;