- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties on Delay Condonation Application No. 291303 of 2013 as well as on Recall/Restoration Application No. 291304 of 2013. Cause shown for delay in filing the aforesaid restoration application is not sufficient. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is rejected.
(2.) The applicant filed Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 209262 of 2013 for recall of the order dated 18.7.2013 by which the writ petition was dismissed in default. The order dated 18.7.2013 reads thus: List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the petitioner to argue the case. The petition is therefore, dismissed for non-prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(3.) The aforesaid restoration application was rejected vide order dated 23.9.2013 with liberty to the applicant to file a better affidavit, which reads thus: Heard Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The cause shown is not sufficient. Accordingly, the restoration application is rejected. However, the Counsel for petitioner may file a better affidavit explaining the reasons for his non appearance on 18.7.2013 when the petition was dismissed for non proution.;