- (1.) (C.M.Application No.109720 of 2016). (C.M.Application No.109721 of 2016). C.M.Application No.109720 of 2016 has been filed for recall of order dated 13.4.2016. C.M.Application No.109721 of 2016 has been filed for condoning the delay in filing application for recall of order dated 13.4.2016.
(2.) On 8.3.2018, when the case came up for hearing, the following order was passed :- "(Application No.109720 of 2016 and 109721 of 2016) 1. The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 9.5.2014 in the following terms:- "Case called out. Neither learned Counsel for the petitioner is present nor there is any request for passing over or adjournment of the case. Since the writ petition is of the year 1998, it is dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated." 2. Application for recall of above extracted order was filed beyond limitation. Under the circumstances, an application for condonation of delay was filed. The application bearing no.129343 of 2014 came up for hearing on 13.4.2016. None appeared on behalf of the applicant to press the application. Under the circumstances the application was dismissed on 13.4.2016 in the following terms:- "C.M. Application No. 129343 of 2014. Case has been called out. None has appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this application for condonation of delay in filing the application for recall of the order dated 09.05.2014. Therefore, the application is rejected." "C.M. Application No. 129345 of 2014. Application is rejected in terms of order passed on C.M. Application No. 129343 of 2014." 3. The application under consideration has been filed for recall of order dated 13.4.2016. Even this application has been filed beyond limitation, therefore, an application for condonation of delay has been filed. Affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay, apparently, has not been filed. 4. Application for recall of order dated 13.4.2016 has been filed vide application no.109720 of 2016 which is supported by affidavit of Arun Kumar Sinha (petitioner). The ground taken in the affidavit is that the case was listed on 9.5.2014 but the petitioner's counsel somehow missed the case from the cause list. Consequently, it was dismissed for NON PRESENTATION. The application itself appears to have been filed without any responsibility towards the court. Affidavit has been sworn on the basis of knowledge of the deponent, although the facts narrated in the affidavit would relate to the knowledge of the counsel. 5. Be that as it may, counsel for the applicant has not appeared, therefore, we direct the case to be listed on 12.3.2018. It is made clear that in case none appears on 12.3.2018 application would be dismissed for want of prosecution."
(3.) From the above extracted order, it is evident that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear to prosecute the writ petition. The writ petition had to be dismissed for want of prosecution.;