Shri Narayan Shukla, J. - (1.) (C.M. Application No. 109188 of 2010).
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the Respondent. The Petitioner has moved the application for recall of order dated 8th of October, 2010, whereby the contempt petition has been dismissed for want of prosecution.
(3.) IT is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that when the case was called out on 8th of October, 2010, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner due to busyness in Court No. 6 could not attend the Court. Therefore, the petition has been dismissed for want of prosecution. Further, the non attendance of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to the Court is neither deliberate nor willful.;