Md. Nizamuddin,J. - (1.) An application for restoration of a writ application dismissed for default on 1st December 2018 was dismissed. The application for restoration was affirmed on 28th March 2017 upon the appellant receiving a letter from the Income Tax Department on 26th March 2017 that the consequences of the said order of dismissal were being enforced.
(2.) Learned Judge was not satisfied with the averments made by the appellant as to the steps taken by them after dismissal of the writ application till filing of the application for restoration. It appears in the reasons given by the learned Judge that the ground made out in the restoration application that the advocate-on-record for the appellant could not attend the Court on the date of dismissal of the writ application, was not disbelieved or doubted by his lordship. In fact there is no adverse comment regarding it.
(3.) The question posed by the Court was what was the appellant company doing after dismissal of the writ application to restore the writ? The authorities are legion that once the case is entrusted with a learned advocate a client need not make a day to day enquiry regarding its status. It is for the learned lawyer to look after the interest of his client. Here without any question, the learned lawyer was unwell. At any rate this application for restoration was made after three months but before four months of dismissal of the writ application for default.;