SUBAL BAIDYA, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for restoration of the application being C.O. No. 2203 of 1999 after setting aside the order of dismissal passed on 16.07.2012.
(2.) HEARD the learned advocates of both sides. At the very outset the learned advocate for the respondents submitted that he has objection regarding the maintainability of the present application as the same has been filed after the disposal of the similar application being CAN No. 8947 of 2012 on hearing both sides by this Court. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the application being C.O. No. 2203 of 1999, the petitioner filed another application on 07.07.2010 being CAN No. 5990 of 2010 by which the petitioner prayed for expeditious disposal of the revisional application filed on 24.08.1999. He further submitted that without disposal of the said application for expeditious disposal the original revisional application was dismissed for default on 16.07.2012 and against that the present petitioner filed an application for recalling the order of dismissal dated 16.07.2012 passed in C.O. No 2203 of 1999. He further submitted that as the earlier application remains undisposed of, so the order of dismissal of the revisional application passed on 12.10.2012 is not proper and the said order of dismissal of the revisional application requires to be recalled so that the petitioner may get an opportunity to agitate his points raised in the revisional application.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned advocate for the opposite parties/respondents submitted that as neither of the parties appeared at the time of call and as it appears to this Court that the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the matter, so the revisional application was dismissed by recording an order of dismissal dated 16.07.2012 on the ground of default. He also submitted that against the order of dismissal the present petitioner filed an application being CAN No. 8947 of 2012 and this Court after hearing both sides as contested matter rejected the said CAN application vide order dated 12.10.2012. He also submitted that when the similar application was dismissed on contest after hearing both sides, the subsequent application for the same purpose is not legally maintainable and therefore, the present application is liable to be rejected.;