- (1.) The Court : On 17th May, 2017, G.A. No. 894 of 2017 was dismissed for reasons stated in the said order. Now another application has been filed on 16th June, 2017, being G.A. No. 1983 of 2017, seeking recall of the said order dated 17th May, 2017. In paragraph 23 of the instant application the following statement has been made : "23. Your petitioner states that admittedly the order dated May 17, 2017 is apparently prejudicial and disparaging to the petitioner. But, indeed the petitioner has not made any bona fide fault on his part in dealing with the said appeal. The petitioner has no intention to create any instance which apparently shows and establishes any abuse of judicial process with his lis."
(2.) We do not find any justifiable reason or basis for such statement to be made, taking into consideration the observations made by us, as contained in the order dated 17th May, 2017, which we intend to reproduce hereinbelow : "The Court : None came forward to prosecute the application, being G. A. 894 of 2017 when the said application stood dismissed for default on 22nd March, 2017. Subsequently, a restoration application was taken out by the applicant being G. A. 1392 of 2017 which was considered and allowed by an order dated 8th May, 2017. By the said order, G. A. 894 of 2017 was restored to its original file and number. The said application, being G. A. 894 of 2017 now appears in the list pursuant to the order of its restoration dated 8th May, 2017. None appears in support of the instant application when it is taken up although the learned advocate representing the respondent is present. It is evident from the manner in which this application has been pursued that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting his matter either with due diligence or with right earnest. The lis is being kept alive somehow and the conduct of the applicant clearly demonstrates this fact. The prayer made by the applicant in G. A. 436 of 2017, which was considered by this Court in terms of its order dated 1st March, 2017, is sought to be made once again in the present application. This is a clear instance of abuse of process of the Court where the litigant seeks to move successive applications seeking the same relief. For reasons stated above, the application is liable to be dismissed and stands accordingly dismissed."
(3.) The present application, which has been taken out even after our observations made in the order dated 17th May, 2017, is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and the same is even more apparent from the statement made in paragraph 24 of the instant application, which reads as follows : "24. Your petitioner states that the petitioner innocuously and humbly prays for hearing of the application being G.A. No. 894 of 2017 in presence of both the parties on merit and disposal of the same by proper and effective adjudication thereof." ;