Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -The writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 10.8.2006, passed by the revisional court.
(2.) ACCORDING to the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner has failed to pay the rent of the shop in dispute and now he is in arrears of rent from 1.8.1997 onward to the tune of Rs. 10,800. The case was filed in the Registry on 7.9.2006. It came up before the Court on 11.9.2006, when the following order was passed : "As prayed for by Sri Shamimul Hasnain, learned counsel for the petitioner let it be put up tomorrow as a fresh case." Thereafter by order dated 18.9.2006, the Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution and observed that "On the last occasion when the case was taken up on 11.9.2006, the counsel for the petitioner prayed that the case be taken up tomorrow dated 12.9.2006. On that date, when the case was called out none appeared to press the petition and the case was directed to be listed on 18.9.2006. Today when the case is taken up in the revised list, none appears to press it. Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution."
(3.) THEREAFTER Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 209587 of 2006, (hereinafter referred to as the First Restoration Application) filed on 27.9.2006 by a subsequent counsel was rejected vide order dated 6.11.2006, which is as under : "This application for restoration has been filed by the counsel, who has been engaged after the case was dismissed for default. Reasons for non-appearance can be given only by the counsel for whose default the case was dismissed and not by the counsel, subsequently engaged. For the aforesaid reason, the application is not maintainable. Rejected." Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 6.11.2006 the petitioner went in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 895/2007, before Hon'ble the Apex Court.;