- (1.) HAVING heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application, it appears that this restoration application is in respect of an order dated 20th September, 2013, whereby an application, being CAN 7415 of 2010, was dismissed for default. That application was a restoration application seeking restoration of a writ petition, which was dismissed for default on 30th August, 2005. Thus, the present application is essentially an application for restoration of a restoration application.
(2.) IN the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that after the writ petition was dismissed for default on 30th August, 2005, no steps were taken for the purpose of filing a restoration application for five long years. After a restoration application was ultimately filed in the year 2010. Even that got dismissed for default on 20th September, 2013. This Court had an occasion to consider a fact situation where a restoration application was not prosecuted with due diligence and prompt dispatch and the applicant did not consider it an urgent necessity to have the main matter restored to its original file and number for the purpose of having it heard on merit. In Smt. Gitarani Rakshit Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in AIR 2012 Calcutta 59, it was held, inter alia, as follows: - "...The fact that no one comes in support of the instant application when it is taken up for consideration is an indicator that the applicant/petitioner is not at all diligent in conducting her case. There cannot be any plausible reason for keeping an application for restoration pending indefinitely, since such an application is only taken out when a matter is dismissed for default and there is an urgent necessity to have the main matter restored to its original file and number for the purpose of having it heard on merit. An application for restoration ought to be pursued vigorously and prosecuted with right earnest and not kept pending for an indefinite period of time. If a restoration application is not prosecuted with due diligence and prompt dispatch, the Court will necessarily presume that the applicant/petitioner has been negligent in conducting his/her case."
(3.) THE ratio of the decision rendered by this Court in the judgment referred above is squarely applicable in the facts of the instant case, since it is only due lack of showing due diligence and prompt dispatch, which resulted in dismissal of the earlier restoration application on 20th September, 2013. The utter negligent approach of the applicant does not inspire confidence upon this Court to favour the applicant with an order as prayed for in the present application.;